Talk:Rumble strip

Painted?

"Occasionally in the UK, they may be painted horizontally across the road in groups of 5 as a traffic calming method, to slow drivers down." I imagine painted-on strips wouldn't actually rumble. Am I understanding this sentence wrong? --Mdwyer 22:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They do rumble but not quite in the normal way, they cause an on-off vibration as oppose to a constant one as the car drives over them. --Nidonocu 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Plaigiarism

I may have spelled that wrong, but a lot of the text is copied from the sources and placed in here. Unless the person that wrote the original text also wrote the article, it needs to be re-written, or there needs to be a direct quote inserted. --MPD01605 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actual inventor?

So who's Charlie's parent?

-I do not know. But I can tell you my Grandfather claims he invented the machine for making them. He did work with a large International Construction company from at least the 50's through to the early 2000's. (Yes he really retired well into his 70's). I am not going to name names but the com[any does a lot of paving in North America and other countries. I don't know if it is true or not but he says that it was patented or trademarked(I"m not sure which) through the company and not his name. Magu (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Classic one car crash

The article state the classic one car crash scenario and it's likely outcome etc. Is the tendency to drift to the right found solely in equally in left and right hand drive countries. The outcome would likely be different in both scenarios. The article does not seem to mention or consider this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.36.109 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I inserted a sentence for clarification.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Race Tracks?

I believe the alternating coloured strips on the edges of race tracks are also called rumble strips and function in a similar fashion. LilDragonGuy 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this page, but I see your point. I've always wondered myself what purpose rumble strips served on a racetrack. If someone could look into this...

On Racetracks, the bumps are very mild. They grab the driver's attention to the track, as their attention is usually directed at other cars and passing them. 8r455 (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposition to Rumbles

Bicyclists are some of the road users that are opposed to misuse of rumble strips because improperly rumbled narrow shoulders are unrideable - rumbles cause bicyclists extreme discomfort. 1999 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities recommends minimum standards for shoulders receiving rumbles to accommodate all users of the roadway and make best use of funds. Much opposition to rumble strips comes where they are installed with no quantitative data is used to justify their installation. Rumble strips on narrow shoulders force bicyclists into the roadway where it is less safe to ride.

US Federal policy on Rumble Strips: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/rumble/index.htm

Colorado Rumble Strips

What happens to the rumble strips part of a road over time?

I have always wondered: for all their benefits, won't rumble strips eventually make (that part of) the road more brittle, as over time, the elements (rain — don't the strips fill up with water during and after rain? — sleet, snow, plus the passage of ever more autos over them) will collapse (at least some of) the strips. I'm curious to see if that doesn't make sense and how (if at all) the planners provide for that not to happen. Asteriks (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Feb 2010

Part I - Alex's incorrect claim of "controversies" by a single editor

This article has been tripled in length by addition of "controversies" by a single editor. The material is poorly referenced and gives undue weight to one side. There are many grammatical and spelling errors. Alex Sims (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Last week, you took my contribution down and you claimed it was unreferenced. At that time, I didn't have any references up because I was unsure how to do it (I'm new to Wiki), but I did indicate at the top of my contribution that I would be adding references in the near future. Since that time, I have added about 20 references and most of these are highly regarded sources from Cda and the U.S..

In my article I indicated that in favourable circumstances they are effective. In other circumstances they are not. It's a fact that even the U.S. FHWA recognizes.

Rumble strips are controversial and part of the issue. Avoiding this matter would not be a full discussion. This is similar to The Theory of Evolution.

The previous version before my involvement was exaggerated an only had 6 reference and the main one was a contractor's journel.

I don't have time to sit down in one sitting and produce a "perfect" contribution and I'm working at this off and on when I get time. If you think there are grammer problems or typos please feel free to correct them.

I'm not sure if there's a restriction on lenght. May be the first version was an incomplete discussion and too short.

I'm almost done and may add a few more sentences and a photo or 2 (once I figure out how to do this).

Finally, you haven't provided any references to dispute my references.

Sincerely,

--Albertoarmstrong (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You wrote: "addition of "controversies" by a single editor.". This is incorrect as a previous editor added the cycling controversy. Refer to Talk: 5. Opposition to Rumble Strips.(above).

P.S.2, I just cheched the history page. Patclem on 24 June 2009 raised the cycling issue before me.

--Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertoarmstrong (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted text (with references) and found most of the references to enable a better discussion. Alex Sims (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Collision reduction (section) "New Zealand used rumble strips in small applications since the late 1980s, and started a larger program in 2004. Research in the country indicated that lane delineation with rumble strips reduced crashes by an average of 27% over all crash types and studies, with types of crashes such as "run off road" being reduced by up to 80% in some studies

The current research indicates that the reduction for ROR is about 20% to 30% (on rural freeways with 12ft shoulders). The claim of up to 80% appears to be a gross exaggeration. Also, your reference is "The hidden persuaders - Contractor magazine, Vol 30 No 9, October 2007". This is a contractor's journel. They have a vested interest in promoting rumble strips to get more work to make more money. It is not an objective source.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertoarmstrong (talk • contribs) 10:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Part II - The hidden persuaders - a contractor magazine

Hi Alex,

I was examining one reference #6 - The hidden persuaders - Contractor magazine, Vol 30 No 9, October 2007. You didn't provide the link, but its: http://www.contrafedpublishing.co.nz/Contractor/The+hidden+persuaders.html

Two key points from the journel are: "• Reports of rumble strips’ effectiveness had shown a two to 44 percent reduction across all types of crashes, with an average reduction of 27 percent.

• Shoulder rumble strips had reduced “run off road” crashes by 20 to 80 percent, with an average of 32 percent (42 percent for fatal crashes)."

In the Wiki paragraph you reinserted states: "New Zealand used rumble strips in small applications since the late 1980s, and started a larger program in 2004. Research in the country indicated that lane delineation with rumble strips reduced crashes by an average of 27% over all crash types and studies, with types of crashes such as "run off road" being reduced by up to 80% in some studies. Centre-line rumble strips showed similar effects.[6]"

This paragraph doesn't reflect the journel. There's no mention of "two to 44 percent"; or the 20 to 80 percent versus up to 80%.

Also, "20 to 80 percent, with an average of 32 percent" seems questionable. The median of 20 to 80 is 50, but the stated average is 32 and this indicates that 80 is an extreme outlier and is suspect.

The Wiki paragraph is not a balanced reflection of the reference as it emphasizes the questionable high-end without mentioning the ranges.

Also, another quote from the journel: "• Efforts to lower the road toll in New Zealand tend to focus on the numbers killed each year and to publicise punitive measures taken against two of the main perpetrators: speeding and intoxicated drivers."

Were there other crash reduction campaigns (i.e. increased policing, eudcational programs, "to publicise punitive measures") in conjunction to the rumble strips that may have contrituted to the reduction similar to the New York Thurway study that initially claimed an 70% reduction, but later admitted that there were other initiatives that contributed to the reduction. (see New York Times article)?

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/26/automobiles/autos-on-friday-safety-achilles-heel-for-gasoline-trucks.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

This paragraph appears unbalanced, so can it be removed? --Albertoarmstrong (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I just added new info to Impacted on Cycling section. In light of this new info, could you delete these last paragraphs:

"Research has indicated that anecdotal evidence.." and "is relatively well tolerated" ???? You need to review some of thier websites. The sources of this info in the following paragraph are not reliable.

"Research has indicated that anecdotal evidence of discomfort or safety drawbacks for bicyclists from riding over (raised) rumble strips of lower height appears to be significantly outweighed by the safety benefits from increasing motorist lane discipline. Nonetheless, research recommends that the rumble strips be interrupted for short distances where cyclists are expected to cross between lanes.[24] Research in Colorado strongly indicates that less aggressive grinding, in which the ground portion and unground portion are about equal at 6 inches, is relatively well tolerated by bicyclists and does not reduce the auditory signal for drivers.

In the United States, the 1999 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities recommends minimum standards for road shoulders receiving rumble strips to accommodate all users of the roadway and make best use of funds." --Albertoarmstrong (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I see that you reinserted the NZ info from the Contractor journel and your edit notes state: "restore deleted section on New Zealand, take a world view" Prior to Feb 5, 2010 the article was very short, simplistic, outdated and non-neutral despite the wealth of infomation available on the net. But 4 weeks later you're all about "take the world view"?

--Albertoarmstrong (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alberto. You keep deleting the favourable article from New Zealand in preference to unfavourable articles from Canada. So I suppose, two issues, World view and NPOV. Alex Sims (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex, Not so. Most references are from U.S. and one from U.K and one from Sweden. All stuff I found on the net. They not "unfavourable" just info from a wide variety of sources.--Albertoarmstrong (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Part III - the New Zealand reference

Prior to the start of my involvement on February 5, 2020, this article was grossly underdeveloped. For some reason Alex appears fixated on the New Zealand study and, as discussed in Part I, is a misquote of the reference which appears to exaggerate the potential effectiveness of rumble strips. Then there is this statement:

"Further research in New Zealand led to "recommendations" that strip edge lines and centre lines be marked over extended lengths of road, rather than just at focal points and accident black spots. Apart from the safety benefits of providing a consistent road environment, continuous markings provide valuable alerts to drivers long before the more common accident spots." In other words, rumble strips are super so install them everywhere (including firvolous installations) so contractors can make lots of money.

which appears to be promotional. The concern is that this reference was inserted on a contractor's or contractor association's behalf. I believe Wiki frowns upon articles being used as a platform for promotional material.

Then, there are the firvolious basis for the the NPOV (as discussed above). After he realized his mistake of his "addition of controveries by a single editor" claim against me he then backtracks and then creates the "world view" spin.

Furthermore, this article appears to have a problem with mild vandalism (15 April, 2010) and spam (9 April, 2010) by others .

Would the Wiki editor please remove this exaggerated New Zealand reference taken from a contractor's magazine (i.e. promotional material)and take down the NPOV banner so I can finalize this article? --Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If one refers to the NPOV policy under Questionable Sources section it is stated: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, ......."

If one refers to Part I they will see only that the high end of the range is mentioned in the Wiki article (extreme) and the source is a contractor's magazine (promotional). Please note, the New Zealand quote is not my work. The New Zealand reference as represented in the Wiki article appears to have NPOV issues.

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Part IV - Ghana reference insert

Hi Alex,

I see you just inserted (May 23, 2010) new material from a Ghana study. However, it appears to be a misrepresentations of the reference.

You wrote (May 23): "Rumble strips can be used to reduce speed. In Ghana, rumble strips were installed on the main Accra-Kumasi highway and reduced crashes by about 35% and fatalities by about 55%. By reducing speeds the environment for and safety of pedestrians and cyclists was improved. [5]"

The article states: "While the enforcement of speed limits by traffic police may not be affordable for most developing countries, rumble strips and speed humps were found to be effective on Ghanaian roads."

Also, contrary to your take on the article there is no mention of cyclists' safety.

Furthermore, what kind of rumble strip is the Ghana study involve? Shoulder rumble strips or tranverse rumble strips? This lack of detail doesn't enhance the article.

Ghana is a third world country with low levels of policing (and I believe the motor vehicle fatality rates there is very high although I'm having trouble find accident stats for that country - probably because its a third world country). So, the implication is that they will produce the similar results elsewhere (with high levels of policing) is suspect.

Rumble strips should only be installed in locations where they are identified problems and there is a reasonable level of certianity they will be effective in reducing those problems. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A Re: To the noice complaints

I personally lived right next to a busy highway my entire life! I would rather hear a rumble rumble rumble to a errrrr crash!!!! which since they put the rumble strips in, i have heard alot less... I dont know if i am the only one that sees it this way or not....--Kopicz (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, so I reworded to "some residents". In cases where they were removed they may have been frivolous installations to begin with.--Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay

Why is there a huge section of this article that just basically states that rumble strips don't prevent run-off-road accidents? It seems like too much weight is given to this content. In fact, it's essentially an anti-rumble strip rant full of synthesis and bias. Swarm^Talk 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm,

Rumble strips only prevent certain types of accidents. This fact is clearly recognized in literature that is widely accepted.

You wrote: "rumble strips (shoulder) don't prevent run-off-road accidents". This is incorrect as (shoulder) rumble only prevent run-off-road accidents but only if shoulder is wide and stable enough for a recovery. There are other factors involved as well.

You wrote: "anti-rumble strip rant full of synthesis and bias". This is incorrrect. In the opening paragraph I wrote: "In favorable circumstances, rumble strips are effective (and cost-effective) at reducing accidents due to inattention. The effectiveness of shoulder rumble strips is largely dependent on a wide stable shoulder for a safe recovery." These are facts clearly recognised in highly regarded literature."

Your use of the term "rant" appears to be an exaggeration. I went to great lengths to support everything I wrote with a wide variety of highly regarded refs. I used direct quotes to avoid being accused of misrepresention. It is hardly a "rant".

Sincerely Albertoarmstrong (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good morning Swarm,

I just saved you the trouble of repairing the article. I would prefer that if you have concerns about the article it was addressed on a sentence-by-sentence or reference basis rather than broad statements such as "anti-rumble strip rant full of synthesis and bias" as it is counter productive. Specifics are so much better and easier to address. Also, in the future, please read the article carefully before deleting information. I touched on this concern on your Talk Page (but now the discussion has been moved to this Talk Page).

Sincerely, Albertoarmstrong (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was taking while to think about this issue, but it seems, my opinion be damned, you've gone ahead and reversed my action. Oh well, I'm not interested in edit warring over it, so I'll leave it for now. I hope you used the undo feature, and didn't rewrite all of that. Anyway, I have no emotional interest in the topic, but if someone else raises any concerns I might return. I certainly hope you don't try to "lock down" your content by fighting any changes that someone makes to it. Anyway, I'm sure you have nothing but the best intentions. Regards, Swarm^Talk 03:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm: No, I won't be "locking down" the content. If anybody can find better up-to-date info I'd like to see it as long as it's not promotional material. Everything I could find on the net is up and I check every now and then for new info. SincerelyAlbertoarmstrong (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm,

You wrote: "but if someone else raises any concerns I might return." Who is "someone else"?

--Albertoarmstrong (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much about shoulder rumble strips. I think this article should tell WHERE shoulder rumble strips are located, and what types of roads. Slayer2448 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Slayer2448Slayer2448 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slayer, the location of the strips is mentioned in the article and there are photos. If you need to dig deeper into the specifications of dimensions there are several references with that info. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Narrow Shoulder Debate

FHWA recommends "Installation of centerline rumble strips (or stripes) on rural 2-lane road projects where the lane plus shoulder width beyond the rumble strip will be at least 13’ wide; particularly roadways with higher traffic volumes, poor geometrics, or a history of head-on and opposite-direction sideswipe crashes." FHWA guidance memorandum on rumble strips.

If the lane and shoulder are 13 feet wide, then there is not necessarily "a wide stable shoulder for a safe recovery." I'll do some digging to see if I can find a reference about effectiveness of rumble strips w/o wide shoulders before adding anything to the article, but knowing FHWA types as I do, I doubt they'd recommend something unless they thought it would be cost-effective.--Triskele Jim (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Triskele, There is an abundance of literature that ties effectiveness to shoulder width. Do you actually believe that if someone falls asleep at the wheel and hits the strip with their right tires they instantaneously wake up and realized what going on and take corrective action? Rumble strip are not "guard rails" they are not a physical barrier. They are a "warning" and that involves waking up and reaction time.

Even FHWA's own literature suggests they are ineffective on narrow shoulders. Also, some 2 lane roads have wide shoulder and others have very narrow shoulders. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, rumble strips with a narrow shoulder will not help a person that falls asleep, but they can help the driver that has a lapse in concentration or distraction and starts to drift out of the lane at a shallow angle.

Take a road with a narrow shoulder, where a drop-off has formed at the shoulder edge. Once a wheel drops off that edge, many drivers do not have the skill to get back on the pavement without overcorrecting, losing control and crossing the centerline. For the drift-off driver, a second or two of warning before they get to the pavement edge drop-off can suffice.

Fall-asleep crashes are probably underreported, but based on the thousands of crash reports I've read during my career, I bet they are a much smaller percentage of the whole than drift-off drivers. --Triskele Jim (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is no paved shoulder then the "rough" gravel shoulder will act as a rumble strip - this probably won't help a sleeping driver but would an inattentive driver. Edge drops were once common, but today they are very rare as they were recognized as a safety hazard so during construction the soft shoulder is leveled with the pavement; and existing roads with edge drops were brought up to the new standard. However, sometimes in hilly areas with high melt/rainfall they form as the soft shoulder is eroded, but they are usually repaired by highway maintenance crews.

The "inattentive" thing is sometimes confused with "mircro-sleeps". Also, "inattentive" driving includes impaired driving. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Split Article?

The length of the article is quite long for those interested in the function and design of rumble strips. Over 50% of the content appears to be justification for, or opposition to rumble strips being used. This amount of work would be enough to fill a "Rumble Strip Controversy" page in it's own merit, which would also keep the information in the current article as succinct as possible.

Why is the fact that salt eats away asphalt inserted in the "Wildlife" section?

There is a reference to a photo on a news site in the text, with no photo to refer to on the page, showing that the crash was "already off the shoulder" before the driver tried to correct. Is there a way to get the photo, or remove the reference to it?

8r455 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess part of the problem is that one needs to understand the dynamics surrounding rumble strips, so it evolved to what it is. Although the New Zealand reference is redundant and questionable so that could go.

I'll see if I can get that photo up. I emailed the owner twice to see if I could use it but they never responded.

I guess the salt thing is too detailed so that can go.Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The effect of edication

It seems, then, that rumble strips are mainly effective if combined with an education campaign that says "if you hit the rumble strip, then you are too tired to drive."

Any info on this aspect? Driver education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.225.104 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)