Safe Speed Forums

Paul,

I was hoping you might be able to help me out by providing a response to a letter I recieved this morning. The council is proposing speed humps down my road in a bid to aid road safety for a school within the street (a school I attended as a child, without being killed or injured travelling to/from school).

Can you advise me on some observed side effects of speed bumps, raised junction entry features and some well spoken arguments against focussing on speed so that I can campaign the residents of my street before anyone responds.

I know I have them all on side re: losing 8 parking spaces, as there are already too many cars for spaces due to inefficient planning.

---

The letter I recieved reads...

"Dear Resident/Business occupier,

'School travel strategy' in Sheringdale School Area
Consultation on Proposed Traffic Management Measures

The School Travel Strategy is a council initiative that aims to improve conditions for children travelling to school on foot, by cycle and also by public transport. An investigation into condition near Sheringdale primary school has resulted in a number of traffic management proposals as shown on the drawing on the back of this letter. These proposals have been approved for implementation by the councils executive, subject to public consultation.

The proposed measures being consulted upon comprise:

1) Road humps in Standen Road.
The road humps are to reduce vehicles speed and thereby improve road safety

2) Two flat top speed table pedestrian crossing points outside 35 Perbright Road and 100 Standen Road. These raised crossing points will slow traffic and make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road, especially those with wheelchairs or pushchairs
Visibility between vehicles and pedestrians will be improved.

3) Junction entry treetments at the junction with Standen Road and Merton Road, Longfield Street at the junction with Balvernie Grove, and Balvernie Grove at the junction with Standen Road.
Entry treatments slow traffic through the junction and make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road especially those with Wheelchairs or Pushchairs.
Visibility between vehicles and pedestrians will be improved.

These proposals are shown on the drawing over leaf. We have strived to minimise the impact on parking spaces although the pedestrian crossing point proposals will result in the loss of 8 parking spaces in total.

Tell us your views, the council wants to know your views on the proposals before implementing the scheme."

The answers sheet comprises questions

"Are you in favour of speed humps in Standen Road"
"Yes" "No" "No Opinion"

"Are you in favour of flat top etc"
"Yes" "No" "No Opinion"

"Are you in favour of junction entry treatments"
"Yes No No Opinion"

"Please comment below"

I know I’m not Paul but I wanted to insert my 2c:

1) Road humps in Standen Road.
The road humps are to reduce vehicles speed and thereby improve road safety

Redundant due to point 2.


2a) Two flat top speed table pedestrian crossing points outside 35 Perbright Road and 100 Standen Road. These raised crossing points will slow traffic and make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road, especially those with wheelchairs or pushchairs

How about installing pedestrian crossings instead? Would that not be the safest option of all?

2b) Visibility between vehicles and pedestrians will be improved.

I don’t understand how especially considering drivers will divert at least some of their focus onto the hump instead.


3) Junction entry treetments at the junction with Standen Road and Merton Road, Longfield Street at the junction with Balvernie Grove, and Balvernie Grove at the junction with Standen Road.
Entry treatments slow traffic through the junction and make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road especially those with Wheelchairs or Pushchairs.
Visibility between vehicles and pedestrians will be improved.

That’s nice, whatever form that takes; that makes the question:

"Are you in favour of junction entry treatments"
"Yes No Opinion"

a bit pointless because the respondent doesn’t know what the treatments will take.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Thanks for your response, appreciate that. They have in fact combined one of the flat top "speed table" features witha "children crossing" sign on the proposal

I don't agree with any of the proposals personally, as I think money could be better spent educating the children on crossing the road instead.

There has also never been an accident involving the children on this street, it's entirely pre-emptive. The school has been there for about 60 years.

My drafted letter for residents is below... opinions on it welcomed

Re: Speed Humps on Standen Road


Dear Resident,

My name is Mark Tonge, I live at number 27 and like you have received the letter regarding implementing speed humps along Standen Road and Junction entry treatments at entrances to Standen Road.

The letter includes some emotive writing explaining how the measures will make life easier for children and disabled pedestrians – please do not be sucked in by this style of writing, I urge you to read my points below to see the negative aspects of these measures.

I would also like to point out that in my youth I attended Sheringdale School (nearly 11 years ago) and had no problems walking to school or crossing the roads. I also can not recall there ever having been an accident along this street involving a child commuting to or from Sheringdale.

• Vehicle speeds along Standen Road are already low due to the overcrowding of parking spaces and short straight stretches. Implementing speed humps will have a minor affect on average vehicle speeds and are more likely to distract drivers from hazards such as children crossing because they will instead be concentrating on navigating humps instead.

• The Road is only overcrowded at school opening and closing times due to parents doing the school run. It seems unfair that the residents of Standen Road should suffer from these measures – the loss of 8 parking spaces once implemented, and many more during implementation - when any hazardous overcrowding will remain whilst parents continue to drive children to school.

• Implementation ‘road safety’ measures focussed entirely on driver responsibility gives out an incorrect message to children and pedestrians. Measures such as speed humps give pedestrians a false sense of security, I am sure you have all had experience, as I have, of children running out in the road without looking in areas where speed humps are in place – I firmly believe this is because they feel overly protected. Money is ALWAYS better spent on education than alleged safety measures.

On a non-safety aspect, can the residents of Standen Road really afford to lose 8 parking spaces, as it is there are more cars than spaces due to poor planning by the council, and it seems very unfair to me that we should pay £75 a year on a permit which is less and less likely to guarantee a parking space.

The problem for the students of Sheringdale primary school lies firmly with overcrowding due to school run parents using cars, and a lack of education for the children with regards to Road Safety – what happened to the Green Cross code? Our council tax money should not be spent on unsettling the residents of this road when it could be spent on educating school children on how to cross roads safely.

I hope you will consider my points at length and respond to the councils “Proposed Measures Questionnaire” with No’s for speed humps and entry treatments for Standen Road.

Kind Regards,

Mark Tonge
27 Standen Road

Have a look at http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm they have a large section on speed bumps and why they are bad.

Examples include:

Increased noise from vehicles braking, hitting the hump and accelerating. Also increased pollution from this

Vibrations felt inside homes when someone chooses to hit the hump at speed (I personally hit them at approx 35mph as this is the optimal speed for minimising back pain)

Increased wear and damage to your vehicles even if you negotiate them "correctly"


Also, you will lose more than 8 parking spaces in reality. No-one likes to park on a speed bump and depending on the design of the road, doing so may prevent you from opening your passenger door without hitting the curb.

Thanks for the link. I've had my g/f who is a PR girl redraft for me

RE: SPEED HUMPS IN STANDEN ROAD

Dear Resident,

My name is #####, I live at number ## and like you have received the letter regarding implementing speed humps along Standen Road and Junction entry treatments at two entrances.

In explaining how the measures will make life easier for “those with wheelchairs or pushchairs”, the letter is clearly trying to evoke emotion. Please do not be swayed by this tactic.

I would like to point out that I myself attended Sheringdale School nearly 11 years ago. I never encountered any problems walking to school or crossing the roads. I can honestly say I do not recall there ever having been an accident along this street involving a child commuting to or from Sheringdale – and I have lived here for 20 years.

I therefore urge you to read my points below on how these measures will have negative effects rather than beneficial ones, for both the children and us residents.

• Vehicle speeds along Standen Road are already low due to the overcrowding of parking spaces and short straight stretches. Implementing speed humps will have a minor affect on average vehicle speeds and are more likely to distract drivers from hazards such as children crossing because they will instead be concentrating on navigating humps.

• The Road is only overcrowded during school opening and closing times because of parents driving their children to school. It seems unfair that the residents of Standen Road should suffer from these measures – the loss of numerous parking spaces throughout implementation, and then at least 8 once complete - when any hazardous overcrowding will remain whilst parents continue to drive children to school.

• Continuing to impose ‘road safety’ measures focussing entirely on motorists gives out an incorrect message to children and pedestrians. I am sure you have all had experience in areas with speed humps, as I have, of children running out into the road without looking. I firmly believe this is because they feel overly protected. Money is ALWAYS better spent on education rather than alleged safety measures aimed primarily at motorists.

On a non-safety aspect, can the residents of Standen Road really afford to lose 8 parking spaces? Currently, there are already more cars than spaces due to poor planning by the council - it seems very unfair to me that we should pay £75 a year for a permit which is less and less likely to guarantee us all a parking space.

The problem for the students of Sheringdale primary school lies not only within overcrowding caused by school run parents cramming the road with their cars, but more importantly with the lack of education for children with regards to Road Safety – whatever happened to the Green Cross code?

Our council tax money should not be spent on unsettling the residents of this road when it could be spent on educating school children how they should cross roads safely.

I hope you will consider my points at length and respond to the councils “Proposed Measures Questionnaire” with No’s for speed humps and entry treatments for Standen Road.

You might also like to visit the website http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm to see further negative impacts of having speed humps in our street.

Kind Regards,

Mark
## Standen Road

Looks good. Only thing I can think of is you may wish to include a print out of the website[1], though this depends on what your area is like. My road for example is mostly old people who dont have internet, so directing them to a website would just be met with confusion.

[1]I'm sure the ABD wont mind you doing this, what with you campaigning against speed bumps

.... which include:

* xxxxxxx
* xxxxxxx
(bullet point the main issues.)

I wanted to put them in but decided upon keeping my letter to one page, adding any further info takes it over one page. I think (and hope) a link will suffice.

If there's enough of you (6 people), you could force a parish

http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/pa ... ums.htm#qa

The other thing that springs to mind is that in Chelmsford town centre and near some schools these types of crossing are being used by pedestrians as a form of zebra crossing and they seem to expect (incorrectly) drivers to also treat them as such . IMO these can actually increase the risk of an accident.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Does any data exist on the dangers of raising the road to the level of the pavement during wintry conditions. In my area one local councillor had to campaign for posts to be placed on the pavement as a safety issue due to cars skidding in icy conditions and ending up on the pavement, whereas in areas with no humps the kerb provides this safety feature.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Another excellent point - I will certainly raise that one with the council in my letter to them. I have printed up 200 copies of a slightly modified version of my above post (thanks to comments from you guys) to post to everyone in the street - had one response of support already, who also pointed out this appears to be a pre-emptive strike by council on a problem that doesn't actually exist!

It's probably worth ensuring that the other residents DO respond.

I recall that Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council canvassed public opinion about a much larger scheme (c.90 humps) on Walney Island back in 2004/5. In short, in their 'analysis' they counted all nil-responses as being supportive of the proposals! I'm sure the full story was carried in the North West Evening Mail (nwemail.co.uk) but I have not been able to locate it on their website.

The proposed scheme was later scaled down to 'just' 14 humps... so not quite a complete victory for common sense but a step in the right direction; no doubt partly due to 95% of those surveyed by the local rag objecting to the council's plans:

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewartic ... ?id=174511 .

Cheers

Yeah I've managed to speak to a few people down the street and just post to the rest, those who I've spoken to are all against it and actually sending in objections.

We had a similar thing when they brought in the parking permits down our street (the spaces covered by which will be lessened by humps!) - they surveyed the street, people went along the road and got a petition, 85% said no. So the council then included 6 more streets in the proposal (approx 1,000 houses) and that time only 150 odd responded (mostly from my road still) with the remaining 850 non-responses being "not against the idea"!! so it got introduced, and the cost has gone up year on year since!!

You might want to check the traffic order/s, lines and signs. If any of them are wrong then they can't "enforce" (make money from) their restrictions and you are and have been paying for a service they can not provide.
In my opinion anyway. If you've got enough support against the restrictions that might be a way to get some money back, or at least annoy them.

_________________
Andrew.