|
What do you think about traffic calming, is it a fad or a
necessity?
You Said...
Posted Monday, November 12, 2007
Green lane to the Farthings pub. Are these the worst speed bumps
in creation?
Alan Hart
Posted Monday, November 5, 2007
I see that my comment of 24th September has not as yet been added
to this thread, so I can only conclude that the moderator has either
gone for a long nap or has lost interest in it!
To reiterate for the benefit of James (Oct 18th), I'd point out that as
a B.Sc Eng I do fully appreciate the physics of collisions, but don't
waffle on interminably about them for fear of confusing the issues;
suffice to say that in the majority of fatalities, the primary impact of
car vs pedestrian is not the prime cause of fatal injuries.
In the majority of cases, primary contact results in broken shins,
ankles and pelvic bones, plus some heavy bruising to the head and upper
arms; however because most car bonnets are relatively deformable,
injuries to the upper parts of the body are lessened through the
reduction in energy transfer by the "crumpling" effect of deforming
thin-gauge metal and plastic.
It is only after the initial impact that more serious injuries tend to
occur, and that is down to a combination of factors of where the
accident occurs, where other traffic happens to be in relation to the
impact site, and where other parts of the infrastructure, i.e. kerbs,
bollards, trees, road signs etc., sit in relation to the direction in
which the pedestrian happens to be thrown after the initial impact.
Even with none of these hazards present in the equation, the effect of
being thrown to the ground with severe force of a vehicle moving at
little more than walking pace can, and frequently does have the effect
of smashing the victim's head very hard against the road surface; not a
good omen, then for those unfortunates who are subsequently thrown into
the path of another vehicle moving in the opposite direction!
In other cases, multiple contact with infrastructure items already
referred to is known to be the main cause of either death or serious
injury, likely to lead to permanent disability.
I therefore feel quite justified in saying that the speed of the vehicle
that hits you is academic; it's what you hit subsequently that does the
major damage, and not necessarily the speed, or to be more precise the
kinetic energy with which you hit them - a broken skull is still a
broken skull, no matter which way you look at it.
Cllr Johnny Bramham, Elmdon
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007
How can Cllr Bramham say that "the speed of the vehicle that
hits you is academic"? Perhaps he doesn't understand that the main
factor determining whether a pedestrian survives a collision with a car
is the speed of the vehicle that hits them. I know he is reluctant to go
into the physics of this (perhaps he doesn't understand it) but to say
it is better to avoid being hit in the first place is not really that
helpful. I think most people are aware of this. It is also interesting
to note that he also knows better than ROSPA regarding collision
survival statistics.
ps He also has me confused. He starts out by saying that you are more
likely to be killed by a car moving fast rather than one moving more
slowly, and then goes on to say that the speed of the car that hits you
is academic?? Come on Councillor, make your mind up!
James
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2007
I must make a point that some of the speed humps appear to be
badly designed and poorly maintained in Solihull. Hurdis Road - the
first hump by Bills lane junction shows an inherent design fault where
the road is lower on one side of the hump than the other - the hump is
to short and to steep causing the front of peoples cars to be forced
into the ground when the rear wheels go up the hump. This is paramount
to causing damage to our vehicles without our consent! I can only go
over this hump 1 wheel at a time sideways at less than 5 miles an hour -
and have lots of visible damage to the front and underside of my car
from this 1 speed hump. The speed limit is 30 MPH - if I cant drive at
30MPH without my car being damaged is it your fault on the insurance! To
avoid this hump takes a 3 mile detour to get to where I live close by.
Come on Solihull council - if you are going to use these deterrents -
then ensure they meet the commonly accepted design standards for
steepness - length and height!- or change the speed limit to 20MPH and
remove the humps.
Rick (Shirley)
Posted Monday, July 16, 2007
Traffic calming in Solihull in particular is a jokeI live on
Old Lode Lane which appears to be the Councillors least favourite Road
as they do their level best to force all traffic down it. We have Valley
Road fully coated in Speed Bumps, yet the problem down that road is
residents appalling parking not any other factor, I drive a 4x4 and
speed bumps make little difference to me except when I have someone else
in front of me doing 5mph over them, which I will attempt to overtake
which is my right as long as I am below 30mph. We also have Jilcott Road
closed at one end to stop easy flow of traffic onto Hobs Moat Road,
again this was done with little consultation with residents except for
the couple of Councillors that live on Jilcott Road, As long as they are
happy then I guess we all are?? We also have Ebrington Avenue and
Charingworth Road in the same appalling state of disrepair and awful road
surface that has been evident since I used to walk to school at Hatchford
Brook 25 years ago, how about spending a bit of money improving those
roads and not building more speed bumps. And to top it all off, I
noticed the appearance of 2 new speed cameras on Lode Lane by Lode Heath
School, I would like to see the Justification for these as I have never
seen an accident there and I was led to believe that these cameras were
to deter motorists from speeding around "Accident Blackspots", another
way of taxing the motorist more like, Solihull council gets worse on a
yearly basis.
Mark Cottrill
Posted Thursday, May 17, 2007
I live in a traffic calming area and my Family car is very low to
the ground thus I cannot drive more than 8miles an hour over these
without bottoming on the sleeping policeman!!!!
Yesterday my suspension collapsed while parked and the coil spring on
the strut snapped, the sharp detached edge then jumped position ending
up resting against the tyre! My heart missed a beat when I thought what
if this had been at motorway speed in the fast lane? how many would have
died?
The 'very nice man' told me he has collected dozens of cars with the
same symptom due to these 'Lumps In The Road'? when is someone going to
wake up and realise the growing killing potential being generated by
these LUMPS? Moreover the cost also to the speed responsible drive??????
Peter - Liverpool
Posted Monday, March 26, 2007
My thanks to those respondents who have taken the time to point out that
you're more likely to be killed by a car moving fast than one moving
more slowly - that's something I worked out for myself many years ago,
but thanks anyway.
I would point out, without going too deeply into the physics, that any
pedestrian struck by any car at any speed is likely to result in serious
injury, not particularly from the initial impact but the subsequent
'double hit' of head contacting car, followed by head hitting road /
kerbstone / garden wall.
For the benefit of our Mr Percival, I'd simply point out that the
chances of him surviving any collision with a moving vehicle is poor -
less than twenty percent of victims live through the experience, and
most of those have lasting deficiencies for the rest of their lives.
I'd therefore reiterate that despite what the ROSPA handbook says, the
speed of the car that hits you is academic; it's far better not to
participate in such a one-sided battle in the first place.
Cllr. Johnny Bramham
Posted Monday, February 26, 2007
Most speed humps do not slow traffic down. The mini speed humps that are
in either lane simply mean that drivers drive in between them, thus
running the risk of a collision in the middle of the road. Full sized
speed humps that cover the entire road do seem effective in slowing down
traffic on the approach to the hump. Drivers simply accelerate hard
after the humps which increases neighbourhood noise and pollution. I
also believe that full size humps are very damaging to you're car unless
you drive over them at a really slow speed. Driving over humps at a slow
speed simply aggravates drivers that are behind you and causes more
problems like road rage etc. I have honestly not noticed any difference
in the average speed that people drive at through humped roads. If
anything, driving standard are worse because drivers know that speed
traps and police presence is less on humped roads. We need to educate
children not to play in the road and drivers need to slow down.
Generally, speed humps do not slow traffic down!
Jason
Posted Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Let me first say that properly designed and positioned humps are ok.
Those which are wide and with a gentler slope and near schools in my
view are ok. I'm writing because my car's left side suspension
collapsed earlier today shortly after going over one of these humps on
Kineton Green Rd. I was in traffic moving slowly, I braked gently and
then felt a clunk and rubbing noises. I thought initially it was the CV
joint which I've had to have fixed quite often (more proof) but on
inspection I saw my wheel was jammed against the bodywork. This proves
to me that the excessive wear and tear of those severe bumps which I'm
forced to go over every day eg close to home in Hall Green, those in
Knowle and in my company's car park and umpteen other locations had
finally taken their toll. I don't know what broke but I know what caused
it. The fact that it broke on one of the more gentler humps at low speed
is ironic but proves the case. I do not speed, my car is in relatively
good condition (or it was) and I do slow down a lot for the humps (when
not being tailgated).
One last point - aside from the fact it's going to cost me hundreds to
remedy what if the suspension collapsed when I was on a major A-road or
motorway. It could have killed me and possibly others.
Lorenzo Baldin
Posted Monday, August 21, 2006
I am happy with the humps in our road , the children can play and you
can see cars have to slow down for the bumps- so no one can put their
foot down without thinking - i know lads down the road who (as many
young men are apt to do )drive a bit fast everywhere - but not in our
road because they know about the bumps- hence its a good road for
families - thank you solihull council
Duggy
Posted Monday, August 21, 2006
All the negative comments posted here about traffic calming is
misguided. Traffic calming works to reduce the average speeds of a
road...this is FACT. As a result accidents ARE reduced.....this is FACT.
They are not put in to annoy drivers the only reason is to reduce the
number of collisions. Yes there are drivers who ignore all societies
rules and this is where traffic calming cannot seek to change behaviour.
Yes they have to be designed well and consultation with residents is
essential however there is a "not in my backyard" mentality
prevalent
although I spend most of my time replying to residents who are begging
for traffic calming only to be informed by me that they can't have any
because there isn't a collision problem where they live, this is when we
get accused of "waiting for an accident to happen before we do
anything". We cannot win.
Traffic calming used on its own has limited effect, but look at your
council closely and you will see that they are doing much much more than
laying bumps. They are in schools teaching kids road safety, cycle
training, pedestrian training, they are working with young drivers,
older road users, vulnerable road users. They are using better signing
techniques, using technology such as vehicle activated signs. Road
safety publicity is on our TV's, radios, local publications, bus backs,
posters, leaflets.
Drivers- choose your next car carefully- choose one which is appropriate
for the world we live in. And remember, we are not going to spend money
to install traffic calming where there isn't a problem, so if you hate
them- don't speed/ kill anyone/ have collisions/ drive selfishly and we
won't be able to put anymore in. I know I am wasting my time with this
rant- but I needed to get it off my chest!
Road Safety Professional
Posted Sunday, May 14, 2006
In response to Kevin Stevens reply to Lydia's post, no you don't
have to be going fast over speed bumps for them to damage your car, you
only need to search on Google to see countless cases of cars being
damaged by driving over speed bumps. I personally have experienced this
when recently my modified car had its rear bumper pulled off, when I
crawled over a speed bump that caused my (stiffened) suspension to
bounce, bringing the back of my car down onto the top of the speed bump
because the sides of the speed bump were sloped not rounded. Now some
people may say I should not have a modified car, but its a free country
and I don't think we can start dictating what cars people can drive as
long as it is legal. I might add my car has been over various speed
bumps of various sizes and easily dropped onto the rolling road for its
MOT but because of this stupidly designed speed bump I am looking at a
repair bill of around £800 to have the bumper re-attached and it all
smooth back into place and re-sprayed. This is hardly fair especially as
I stopped before going over the speed bump. Yes we need some sort of
measure to stop idiots doing excessive speeds but speed bumps clearly
aren't the answer. In response to your other comment about Lydia's car,
a Saxo VTS is not a cheap car or poorly built car and even if it were,
the roads should be in such a condition that the car can negotiate them,
after all not everyone can afford an expensive car.
Tim Hood
Posted Monday, January 30, 2006
Can anyone tell me where there are speed humps with a warning sign
"pedestrians may be crossing on humps" is there an obligation to stop to
let them cross on these humps please? It will settle a long standing
argument between my partner and me - I say you should stop and he says
no
Rosalyn Ford
Posted Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Humps! The bain of my life! I live in Middleton Road,
now I can't say if the humps on Hurdis road slow traffic down or not but
what I can say is that they move the problem elsewhere. During the
recent re-surfacing of Hurdis road most of the humps were removed for a
week or so, the traffic levels & more importantly the speed of the
trafic using Middleton was massively reduced. So buy 'calming'
Hurdis road all we have managed to do is move the problem to Middleton &
Velshda roads GREAT! I have to agree with Geoffrey Dean & his idea
to make roads like these dead ends. Either that or some sort of
restricted access scheme?
Blair McWilliam
Posted Monday, October 10, 2005
As a reply to Wayne, who seems to think that Councillor
Bramham is talking sense, I would like to draw your attention to the
following: The kinetic energy of a car is proportional to the square of
its speed. That is to say, that a car travelling at 40mph has almost
double the energy of a car travelling at the correct speed of 30mph.
This is energy that is transferred to the unfortunate pedestrian who may
step out in front of the car, and is why the chance of surviving a 30mph
collision is about 80%, whereas the chance of surviving a 40mph collision
is about 10-20%. John Percival pointed this out below, and therefore
Cllr Bramham's idea of being "just as dead" when hit by a car travelling
at 30mph as one travelling faster is completely wrong. There seems to be
a real anti-speed camera/speed hump mentality in society today. I think
that all of you who seem to think it is perfectly acceptable to travel
above the speed limit in built up areas would soon change your minds
when it is your child who is knocked down and killed by a selfish
speeding motorist. In my mind anything that will cause people to slow
down is a good idea. Speed humps will not damage your car if you slow
down to cross them (I am not talking about travelling at 30mph over them
either, 20mph or less would be more sensible).
Steven Berry
Posted Tuesday, September 27, 2005
I now drive approximately 8 extra miles per week to avoid
local road humps. Not so good for the environment but better for my cars
suspension and my state of mind. It is ridiculous that some roads
will have pot-holes filled in then be supplied with humps !
Perhaps the short sighted individuals who insist on these measures will
in future push for all vehicles to be fitted with square wheels and then
prove that the world really has gone mad.
Pete Thorp
Posted Friday, September 23, 2005
In reply to Cllr Johnny Bramham, Elmdon. At last
there's a councillor who talks sense. He's probably summed up this whole
debate to within a few words. Excellent news.
Wayne
Posted Friday, August 19, 2005
I Live in Reservoir Road that has about 5 speed bumps along
it and I don't mind them being there, considering I drive almost the
full length of the road each day at least 3 to 4 times you think I'd get
annoyed but I don't, why should they be removed !!!, just so people who
occasionally drive down the road who don't even live there can put there
foot down to get to work \ home quicker, ask the residents they fully
support the speed bumps. If you don't like them, drive a different way
to work \ home.
Stuart
Posted Monday, August 8, 2005
Recently had a fall on stairs and broke my back. Taken to
hospital in an ambulance that had to negotiate speed humps. Slowed down
journey and each hump had to be taken at crawling pace so as not to do
any more damage or create any more pain. Did not work felt each hump.
Thank god this was not a Fire Engine racing to a fire or an ambulance
rushing to a serious emergency. Speed Humps? Useless and unnecessary.
Mike Rogers
Posted Monday, July 25, 2005
I live in an ugly new town (well... built in the 1960s) full
of ugly flat-roofed labyrinth-like housing schemes and one roundabout
after another! A typical example of '60s town planners'
LSD-influence. It would now appear that every day there is a new spate
of speed bumps of varying heights (although some are more like cliffs!!)
to contend with. I do think traffic 'calming' measures are required
in many instances, but surely there are other means of providing a
solution to inherent speeding problems. Is it because perhaps that
this is the cheapest means? However, it seems like our town has gone
mad!!! It has taken us 2500 years to create quality traffic
infrastructures (having got a good head's start from the Romans) and now
we decide to bu%%er them up for reasons it seems are solely to inflame
drivers' tempers - which will result in more accidents. ALSO - the
average car does not have the suspension to cope with some of these
'sleeping policemen' - I am fortunate because I drive a 4 x 4 (which
chews them up and spits 'em out!) but I pity the average punter who has
a bog-standard Ford Escort or similar (as not everyone can afford Mercs
and BMWs with top notch suspensions) and their annual servicing bills -
new suspensions are not cheap! I am fortunate to walk to work,
however, I know colleagues who have to traverse 28 speed bumps - that is
56 per day (to work and back) that is 280 per week - approx. 13440 per
annum (allowing 4 weeks annual leave)... I don't think it will be long
before somebody follows hot on the heels of the bus driver in Wales who
put in a claim for spinal injuries (repeatedly - on his daily route -
having to cross hundreds of bumps!) and WON - and the Council had to
uplift them all - at a further expense to tax payers. I wonder if all
other tax payers feel cheated at the fact that they are paying for these
'menaces' to be laid to damage their cars - in effect, if you add it to
their annual car maintenance bills, paying twice for something we don't
want too much of! Until car manufacturers build cars to withstand
the brunt of these speed bumps, we will always complain. In moderation,
they are a great idea - if they have been placed as part of an integral
Road Safety Strategy including other safety measures - fine, but just
using this as a cheap means to appease the problems of speeding is not
right. I think we should all TOOT our horns each time we go over a
speedbump - then local Councillors etc would soon get the HUMP!!!
Kat McDonald
Posted Friday, July 22, 2005
I watch with dismay the growing number of pointless and
costly traffic calming measures infesting our towns roads. Speed
cameras and humps, chicanes, narrowing perfectly good roads....... who
does it slow down? The average person? Yes. The minority of dangerous
drivers? No - they have no concept of good driving practice, and so why
would they care about a speed hump or a chicane? So why penalise
everyone with this faceless approach. Traffic calming measures may once
have proven effective in highlighting dangerous areas, such as schools.
Deploy them everywhere as appears to be the case now, because some short
sighted moron THINKS it might be a good idea, and you lose the
distinction between a high-risk area and a low risk area (and if anyone
believes there should be no distinction are more dangerous than the
drivers themselves). Surely we can find a better way of wasting my
money. Identifying where a driver is a danger to others - by an old
fashioned policeman in his patrol car, perhaps? Or is this a too
revolutionary a concept today?
Steve C
Posted Thursday, June 2, 2005
I can not understand for the life of me when you are in a
30-mile zone you are unable to travel over speed humps at that speed
without wrecking you vehicle. Perhaps there is someone out there that is
brighter and cleverer than I am and knows the answer. If so, I would
dearly love to hear from them? With an average downturn in
retail sales this year of approximately 10%, I would have thought that
Solihull would be leading the way by making the area a user friendly
place to visit.
Dave
Posted Friday, May 20, 2005
I am a 23 year old male. To start with i'll talk about speed
bumps. I know of a young lad that at the time was only 18. He hadn't
been driving long. Well one evening when he was driving down a road with
a 30mph speed limit he crashed after bouncing off a speed bump and hit a
tree. IT KILLED HIM. He was only travelling 33mph (Police Report) and
swerved to avoid a car that pulled out in front of him from a blind road
on his left. He had to go over the bump which made his car bounce and
lose grip. He skidded onto the opposite side of the road and hit a big
oak tree. He died instantly. He had an old car as nearly everyone does
that is young and has just passed their test. Old cars have softer
suspension, poorer brakes and are a lot more dangerous in the event of
an accident as they are weaker than newer cars. I totally hate speed
bumps. I have had my exhaust system ripped off several times through no
fault of my own. I have damaged my sump that cost me a lot of money to
fix. I am classed as a Boy racer but i dont race its just because i own
an Escort Cabriolet XR3i with a very loud exhaust system and its lowered
on a set of alloys. I think in my opinion that its better to be heard
coming down the road so then every potential person that may walk out in
front of me gets plenty of warning before hand plus other road users can
hear me and not drive into my car. My dad has got a brand New Seat Ibiza
and he is a very careful driver but had his sump smashed and his car
bottom out on nearly every speed bump he went over. Speed cameras are
useless too. It doesn't stop car thieves etc from speeding through them
and causing accidents. The police need to be watching normal road users
not just boy racers. I get fed up of being pulled over all the time for
no reason what so ever. At least 3-4 times a day i get a stop and check
and now and then a warning if i'm not in my hometown. The police need to
concentrate on muggers, murderers, CAR THIEVES (I had my Escort stolen
and the Police didn't pursue it) and all the other scum. Boy Racers get
treated like they have just killed a person on many occasions. I'm sorry
if people reading this dont agree but myself and about 40 others i know
do. Car Thieves hang about in Boy Racer areas in stolen cars and that is
one of the reasons a boy racer has a bad image and name. If the police
concentrated on this area of crime that would make a lot more people
feel safer and happier. Thank you for your time.
Steve.Y
Posted Thursday, September 16, 2004
Ah, this is quite the debate, and it continues in many
places!
Speed humps work when placed properly. They are absolutely horrible when
the proper care hasn't been taken when creating a traffic calming plan.
Traffic calming measures should be a last resort. If speed is the issue,
it is often the local traffic that is causing the problem. In this case,
education in the form of radar signs often works well. If the problem is
volume, it could be that people are cutting through on the smaller
streets to avoid congestion on large streets. To solve this, the best
way to do it is to fix the main roads so that they have the required
capacity. However, this is usually quite costly, and requires
significant investment into infrastructure - something that is difficult
to convince tax payers to do. Public education about what impact
traffic calming measures will have is essential prior to installing
anything. In the meantime, I suggest you slow down to save your
suspension.
Canadian Municipal Engineer
Posted Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Humps slow traffic down as they go over them - lots speed up
between humps to make up for "lost-time". Some Pedestrians try and
use humps as pedestrian crossings so increase risk of being hit as cars
don't identify the humps as crossings. What are the humps for?
Humps reduce speeds below 30mph. If the idea is to reduce speed then
reduce official limit to the new required speed ? 20mph? Then employ
retired people with speed guns and 10% commission on fines and you'll
soon trap the idiots who drive too fast!
Humpfree
Posted Friday, August 13, 2004
Every now and then I check up on what my dear brother has to
say from my 'Net vantage point here in Toronto, Canada. There have
been numerous attempts at traffic calming here, usually consisting of
low speed limits (30 km/h), 3m wide bumps AND street narrowing. Do
they work? In some residential areas they do. Unfortunately, most
happen to be in upscale neighbourhoods that complained loud and long
until the city caved in. John is right when he says you're just as
dead if you're hit by someone doing 30 mph (50 km/h to me). Today a six
year old child lies in a coma in a Toronto hospital after being hit by a
car travelling at little more than a walking pace.
It's all relative.
Ruth Bramham
Posted Wednesday, August 4, 2004
I must reply to Cllr Bramham's comments below. Although I
agree that roads are primarily designed for traffic, children and
animals do not understand this, and consequently run out without
warning. His comment about being "just as dead" when hit by a car
travelling at or above 30mph is plain ill-informed. The chance of
surviving an impact with a car at 40mph is vastly less than if the car
was travelling at the correct (maximum) speed of 30mph. If only those
idiots who persistently drive above 30 would realise this we would all
have a more pleasant, and safer, journey.
John Percival
Posted Friday, July 23, 2004
I recently returned to my childhood home off Green Lane in
Castle Bromwich, after many years in Sheffield. The plethora of humps
from the Farthings Pub up to Auckland Drive are the worst (steepest) I
have ever come across. It is not possible to comfortably traverse them
at any speed - even at less than 15mph. However, I've since used the
route Chester Road, Manor Park Road, West Avenue, Tomlinson Road to
avoid the humps - not quite what the Council envisaged I think - but it
saves any potential damage to my car. I remember when Green Lane was a
'main road' that I crossed carefully every day for 4 years going to
school. Whatever happened to the Green Cross Code?
J DisSalvo
Posted Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Just beep your horn when ever you traverse a speed hump at
any time. If enough of us do this, the residents will soon campaign to
have them removed.
Steve Turner
Posted Monday, June 28, 2004
What is the purpose of a kerb. It must have an important
feature of safety between the road user (Fast Vehicle) and slow
vulnerable user ( Pedestrian ). Roads all over the country have them to
perform some basis of a safety barrier.
SO WHY have Solihull Council decided that kerbs are no longer required.
They have raised the traffic island at St Bernards/Kineton Green Road,
so the kerb with the pavement has become virtually no existent. ( And
also where the humps are - no kerbs - I've seen cars take these humps
diagonally to lessen the wear and tear, and they could easily mount the
pavement.
Again, like other "traffic" initiatives in Solihull, the Councillors,
who don't have to use these areas have gone ahead and made life a little
more unbearable for the residents.
Kerbit the Frog
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004
Looking down this thread it seems there are good arguments
both for and against humps, so I'm not going to reiterate all of them,
just the ones that make most sense out of the debate.
Humps undoubtedly slow most traffic, but not necessarily the sort that
need to be slowed; boy racers rarely drop their speed going over them,
and the noise this produces has to be heard to be believed.
The remainder of us just have to put up with them for the foibles of
these few.
I'd also ask folks to remember that the roads are built specifically for
the passage of traffic, and to my mind putting obstacles in the way of
traffic defeats the basic purpose of building a road - you might just as
well leave it as a muddy track with a few boulders strategically dug
into the surface.
The way forward here is not to target the car specifically, but to
educate the pedestrians and cyclists to keep away from moving traffic.
Speed on its own never killed anyone; it's peoples' lack of perception
of speed that does the damage, and it's of little use screaming that the
car shouldn't have been doing more that thirty M.P.H. when it hits you -
you're just as dead!
Cllr Johnny Bramham, Elmdon.
Posted Friday, June 18, 2004
How many more people have to be injured or killed on
Yorkminster drive before Solihull council decide to do any traffic
calming measures? The recent change to car parking places along the road
have done nothing to slow the speeders down.
Veronica Walker
Posted Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Who is responsible for the "traffic calming exercise" on St
Bernards Road? Did they give any consideration what so ever to
cyclists? If you haven't seen this, it consists of a number of bollards
in the middle of the road, making it narrow and preventing overtaking.
I cycle down the length of this road too and from work each day and
before these were introduced it was a pleasant ride. The wide road
allowed drivers to give you a wide birth (most of which did). All that
has resulted since the introduction of the bollards is that traffic
cannot get past cyclists at these points. They either end up right on
your arse or cut in past you at the last moment. Since the introduction
I have been knocked off once and had a few more near misses. This is a
serious "man-made" accident waiting to happen!!!!
Adrian Fellows
Posted Friday, May 21, 2004
Why isn't the government fighting the cause of the problem?
POOR DRIVERS - I think people should be re-tested every 5 years to make
sure they are of a certain standard, this would get the idiots off the
road, solve congestion problems and it is as simple as that. To keep
your license you pay £35 to have your retest and only when you pass can
you be allowed on the roads. I'm up for that one.
Matt - Just had his car written off by a blind 80yr old man.
Posted Monday, February 16, 2004
Due to poor design, construction errors, wear and tear, many road humps have such
strong slope variance that at virtually any speed vehicles will get very uncomfortable and
even dangerous mechanical shocks, This way, a number of bus passengers have been severly
injured and in some cases even disabled for life. However, it now exists a shock-free
hump.
Email me for details
johan.granlund@spray.se
or visit www.ride-quality.tk
Johan
Posted Monday, January 19, 2004
I'd just like to agree with the speed bumps. Fair enough it slows down congestion but
when your feeling travel sick it doesn't help with 10 speed bumps to go over!
Anthony Perkins
Posted Wednesday , October 22, 2003
What the hell is a cattle grid doing on the main Stratford Road in Hockley Heath? Not
content with forcing thousands of motorists to pay out for replacement shock absorbers we
will now be paying dentist bills to get fillings replaced..... ENOUGH IS ENOUGH !
You cannot drive over these things at more than 5 miles an hour without feeling you just
drove down a flight of steps and speed humps that force you to drive over them at between
5 and 10 miles an hour cause more aggravation and road rage than they are worth. It's time
to cut the knackers of speeding motorists and stop penalising sensible road users.
Truemans Heath Lane in Dickens Heath and Yoxall Road in Shirley are just a perfect reason
for ditching the car all together. Enough of this insanity please.
Ian Sill
Posted Wednesday, October 22, 2003
More cameras (switched-on and loaded with film) and less humps!
I personally have no problem with the illegal speeding morons paying for our road policing
with the extra "tax on speed".
Cameraman
< 30 M.P.H. is a limit, not a target>
Posted Wednesday, October 22, 2003
I think speed humps are great. When looking to buy a house, you know straight away if the
road is a rat-run and don't buy one in that road!
Seriously though, the fiasco in Yoxall Road, where no-one wants to give way at the
chicanes, is going to result in a serious accident any time now...
Jeff, Solihull
Posted Sunday, September 21, 2003
I have a powerful sports car, and yet I am constantly surprised and concerned that
drivers drive right up by backside in 30mph zones, drive at 40mph in 60mph country lanes,
but when we then enter a 30mph zone past a school they still drive at 40mph when I have
slowed to 20. If it were possible, I would like to see the driving test introduced every 5
years. This would, if nothing else, get a lot of moronic drivers off the road.
Speed humps are unfortunately a necessary evil until the majority of drivers can learn to
restrain themselves to within the speed limit.
John Percival
Posted Thursday, August 28, 2003
I am hoping the highways will put more speed ramps on Windward Way, Smith's Wood. The
speed of the drivers down there is frightening. I am not in favour of the mini-ramps the
council has put in over Smith's Wood, with my wheels either side of the ramp it then
scrapes the bottom of my car. If they did full length speed ramps this would be much more
effective. I'd rather spare my kids lives and have to live with slowing down to drive
around Solihull streets than face the other awful consequences.
JC
Posted Thursday, August 21, 2003
For one speed humps are a waste of time, money and make the roads in even worse
condition than they already are, they also don't do much good for your car you've paid
hard earned cash for oh and you've also taxed your car which is paying for the stupid
things ruining it? vicious circle? I think so!! Also what's the crack with the road system
on Burman Road, causing traffic to swerve from side to side or pick who has priority
through the minimal gaps in the road surely this is dangerous, Can't people in this
country just leave things be?
Helen
Posted Wednesday, August 6, 2003
It surprises me that a few people on this board seem to think that they have a right
to drive their cars as fast as they like wherever they like. This is not the case: the
pedestrian comes first (it did in evolution!) and unfortunately, the pedestrian is much
more at danger than the car driver. Every priority for protection must be given to the
pedestrian, even if it involves 20 mph limits. What a drag it is to have to drive so
slowly to save a life:(
And yes, on another point, safe cycle lanes would be very welcome. As would trams but then
that's a pipe dream when we have a Tory Council and a Labour government: both parties
rarely give a thought to public transport. Look at cities abroad to see how it's done.
Start with Strasbourg:
www.railway-technology.com/projects/strasbourg
Chris Williams
Posted Sunday, May 25, 2003
Speed humps not only cause damage to the car, but also anger from the driver.
Ban the damn things............
Steve
Posted Friday, April 25, 2003
Judging by the majority of comments listed here it seems that the overall feeling is
GET RID OF SPEED HUMPS.
The local council should look at this site and respect the wishes of its electorate.
Failing that a group should be set up to fight against every hump in the area (except at
defined accident black spots). This could take the form of people standing for election at
the local by-elections. Oh what a shock would be in store for the local councillors then
when these people get elected. There would actually be people on the council who would
take account of what local people really want. An alternative could possibly be to take
the council to court for failing to consult its electorate (or something like that).
I don't want to advocate speeding or law breaking in any way but the wishes of the people
MUST be respected.
Phil
Posted Thursday, April 24, 2003
A few people seem to be advocating that 30mph is too slow and one comment states that
cars are now more advanced and can stop sooner etc.
Well, road conditions can vary especially in winter so I do not see an argument for
increasing the speed limit. Also, at speeds in excess of 30mph, it would be impossible to
get out of most small side roads if traffic was going faster than it does now. This would
lead to people cutting out or taking chances and further increase the risk of an accident.
John Davies
Posted Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Once again the law-abiding and selfless citizens are penalised because of the selfish
and arrogant many. The speed bumps do not slow down the Mercs and BMWs because their
suspension can ride them at speed. Instead they cause damage to poor old hatchback even
when taken at below speed limit. The speed cameras do not slow them either because they
can afford to pay any fine imposed.
The only way to slow down the selfish and arrogant of Solihull is for all law-abiding
citizens to frustrate their attempts to race and speed.
Get a Land Rover Defender or similar; block the roads and keep to the speed limit; strap a
video camera to your dashboard on permanent record and send the tape to the police
whenever an idiot races past you or cuts you up.
By the way, has anyone noticed how many idiots are running through red lights these days?
Get them on tape too.
Sicka Idiots
Posted Friday, April 18, 2003
Has anybody had the experience of damage to ABS sensors due to speed humps? My son in
law & I have each had sensors go faulty since humps were installed locally. When you
think about it the sensors are part of the un-sprung mass of the car and therefore subject
to the full force of road shocks.
Peter Lovatt
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2003
My standard Metro always grounds on speed humps, some of them seem shoddily
constructed. Also the government is trying to curb pollution caused by motor vehicles
(which incidentally cause less pollution IN RELATION TO USE) than public transport, but
constantly accelerating and decelerating (and having to keep the choke on in my metro
because of it) causes more emissions on a short road than a long straight stretch of road.
If the government wants to decrease pollution, taking out speed humps would have a
CONSIDERABLE and NOTICEABLE effect.
David Wills (Edgbaston)
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Well here's another example of the government telling us we have to do X but not
giving us a way to do it. We are told traffic reducing schemes like high taxes on petrol
are meant to encourage alternative means of transport. But we have not alternative means.
Trains don't run on time, and often not at all. Buses are being reduces to bare minimum.
And now Bikes are under attack. If you don't want to pay for cyclists injuries in road
accidents (and I am not a cyclist, I ride a motorbike) well, do something about it. Build
cycle paths! It's not that hard to see how obvious this solutions is - what's the hold-up!
Oh yeah, they may not pay road tax, but I am sure some of them work and pay income tax! Or
maybe they at least live somewhere and pay council tax. I would cycle more, but I have
young children, and it's just not safe letting them on the roads. So when we do go out, I
make sure there are pavements for them to ride on! And for the wife too. It's not worth
the risk of life to ride in the road, and if the council doesn't like it, build us cycle
paths.
D
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Make the roads safer? increase the driving age to 20, we'll get at least a little more
maturity from the newly passed boy racers that way (i used to be one too!) More
importantly remove the old people and those who don't know the length and width of their
cars (make this part of the test-two cones and say if your car will fit through from 50
yards away). This way the roads will flow better, the speed humps can be removed and we
will all be happy. I drive 40,000 miles a year, iv only ever seen problems with the old or
very young behind the wheel, and lets face it, we can get rid of both problems.......
Anon
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2003
30mph ? hmmm, a speeding law brought in at a time when cars had drum brakes all round,
horrendous handling and safety was not exactly an issue. I love the advert where the car
takes ages to stop from 30. How about the limits being brought in line with the ability of
the cars we drive? And, for those that argue that its the driver not the car, How about
mandatory 'ability assessments' for drivers. I'm sure the number of drivers on our roads
would decrease, with those left of proven ability to get where they need to go at a safe
speed for the cars they are driving and the ability of the driver.
Matt
Posted Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Does anyone happen to know where speed bumps exist on Crossroads anywhere in the
borough. No didn't think so, although the council are thinking of doing just that. I'm not
convinced that is the safest think to do, especially on Norton Lane Earlswood, or in
Tidbury Green. Speed bumps are for urban areas, they are not the solution in the
rural-urban fringe. Just reduce the speed limits, might be cheaper as well. Well the
council will do what it likes it usually does....
Anon, Earlswood
Posted Saturday, February 8, 2003
Speed Hump critics......remember .....30MPH is a Maximum Speed and NOT a target!
Speed Cameras are better - That way the law abiding taxpayer is subsidised by the idiotic
morons who break the law by speeding. You don't have the right to speed. The law is there
for a reason - safety.
JD
Posted Tuesday, October 22, 2002 at 10:31:32
Can anyone tell me how the speed bumps have helped with traffic calming along Green Lane
and Auckland Drive? Drivers may have been forced to slow down, in fear of causing damage
to their cars when driving over them - but it has become a more common occurrence these
days to see drivers swing out into the centre of the road to avoid their car taking the
full brunt of the speed bump - this has not helped road safety!
D Darby
There seems to be lots of talk slating speed humps and speed cameras. Unfortunately until
all drivers adhere to the posted speed limits and drive at an appropriate speed for the
road conditions (traffic, weather, time of day, visibility etc...), road hardware seems to
be the only way to slow people down. Everyone knows that they shouldn't drive as fast as
they do, but they still drive at speeds that are inappropriate for the current conditions.
Driver education would be the ideal answer in a perfect world. Unfortunately we don't live
in one. Everyone enjoys the freedom that a vehicle can offer and we all feel picked upon
when something external tries to take that away from us. If everyone drove better, more
considerately, slower when necessary and adhered to speed limits, nothing else would need
to be done and we wouldn't end up with the whole of our road network covered in humps and
cameras. I think this is very unlikely to happen, so until then, we careful drivers, must
pay the penalty along with our speedier counterparts.
Sean Clarke
It's doesn't matter what I say on here anyway, because what difference will my
comment make? Speed humps are yet another stupid idea by the government and police to try
and slow drivers down.... Once again the Solihull Borough has fallen in line, and what a
mess you've made......
Jamie Williams
Firstly speed bumps are useless. they don't really slow cars down. The car just gets up to
its normal speed before/after the bump. they just make the driver use more petrol by
slowing down and accelerating. My car has HUGE alloy wheels and very low
suspension.. speed bumps scrape the underside of my car so I have to find alternative
routes. this is NOT on. I pay ROAD TAX for one reason only (so I can use the
roads!). unfortunately I can use very few of the roads in my area as they are covered in
speed bumps. chicanes are no problem, they allow me to test my skill and cornering
ability of my car at speed! Speed cameras are stupid too. I was in a 40MPH zone and was
racing some guy. I hit 90MPH and still it never flashed me. I went through another 2
cameras at this speed and only one flashed. I am still to receive a letter from the feds
about this (some 2 years later!). My god SMBC, spend your money on making the roads better
for speed! if we weren't made to concentrate on slowing our cars down and changing gear we
wouldn't need to run innocent people over.
Kev Car Racer
People that say you can't damage your car driving over speed humps either don't have a car
or must have a car with big suspension such as a Land Rover or Merc. I own a small
hatchback and am not one to speed. My car has been into the garage more than once with
'speed hump' related problems. My exhaust was dragged off by one down Highters Heath Lane
in Hollywood, I damaged a fuel line on one in Yardley near the college I attend, and if
you look under my 2 year old car the chassis has many scuffs where I've touched concrete
driving over the 'sleeping policemen'. I don't condone speeding and think the red concrete
lade in some areas is a good idea, but I think the majority of people think speed bumps
are a pain. If people crossed the road properly then they wouldn't get hit by cars. School
kids are a nightmare and then way they slowly march across busy roads its no wonder they
get hit. If pavements are for walking on, let roads be for driving on, and stop slamming
concrete humps in roads. The government should foot the bill for those cars damaged by
their 'road safety' measures. They can start with the £150 I paid for a new exhaust!
Graham
I has got a maxed car that I has spent dollars on, since I got it as a bog standard
shopping wagon of a Nova GTE. Da bumps down me road caused some big time damage to it
d'other day! A bump the size of Wales ripped of me under car neon's and me R&A
diffuser. Me diffuser then ripped through me intercoola that keeps me twin hybrid turbo's
cool. Not to mention what the bumpy ride over the speed bumps did to my 15lb N.O.S. bottle
in me boot!!! I swear its gonna cost millions too fix! Get rid of them bumps then I can do
35mph in da 30mph zone again, like the rude boy I am! Turn up the base, and keep it
real.
Kevin
SPEED BUMPS AND CAMERAS (In reply to Sharon Barrys earlier statement). I am constantly
sickened by people like Mrs Barrys who actually campaign for speed bumps and cameras.
While I see the advantages in specific areas (such as Sparkhill scheme) where they lower
crime and congestion to side roads, I am annoyed by the increase in bumps and cameras to
'slow people down'. This doesn't work as people just speed up rapidly between them which
is even more dangerous. Bumps also damage cars, and cameras cause people to break rapidly.
Mrs Barrys 'near miss's' would not be solved by speed bumps, the best thing she can do is
contact the AA for driving lessons. Ravenswood Rd isn't dangerous unless your blind and
half-witted. My car was damaged by a speed bump in Yardley near Cockshutt hill rd, as it
was too high for my car! My car is a band new stock Saxo VTS and my exhaust was pulled of
as I crept over one of the bumps. Perhaps Mrs Barrys would like to pay the £300 damage
caused to my car, either that or lie in the road herself. The motorist is already taxed to
death with out repair bills caused by 'idiotic' road schemes. Mrs Barry, I bet you own a
milk float of a car and tootles round at 20mph complaining about everyone else's driving,
when you drive like a chimp, on weed. Long live open roads and enjoyable driving.
Lydia
In Reply
I am considerably and utterly mortified by Miss Lydia's scandalous remarks towards Mrs
Barry. It is the youth of today, like miss Lydia (I assume that u r a youth?) that drive
recklessly and speed round Solihull leading to the council being forced to implement these
road schemes such as speed bumps and cameras. I would like to point out Lydia, that for
you to cause £300 worth of damage to your brand new Saxo that u must have been doing a
fair speed over the speed bumps. The only other explanation may be that you should
consider the fact that you simply wasted your money on what can only be described as a
poor car. Happy motoring
Kevin Stevens
Speed Humps are the answer - Do drivers really think that if the humps are removed then
they would drive more sensibly? why do they think they were put there in the first place!
They do a good job of deterring people off the minor roads onto roads built for
speed. The size of the humps are usually built to allow emergency vehicles to pass
over them and if drivers drove over them at a constant low speed there would be no reason
to be constantly accelerating/braking. Humps do not devalue house prices, the
obvious nuisance/danger from speeding drivers does. Lets not forget people are killed on
pavements from speeding drivers, who lose control of the vehicle.
The humps are not the problem, it is still the drivers.
Dee
When the Touchwood centre opened in Solihull I started to use the back roads to enter
Shirley. The road humps etc are giving me great problems so I contacted the man in
charge of traffic at the council in his letter in response to my aspirations giving me the
official line etc he stated that it was their duty to save lives and that the majority of
the residents wanted the traffic calming so I would have to put up with it in February
this year I found that my automatic vehicle had developed unusual jumping problems it had
been in for its winter check so I didn't expect it to be anything serious. The garage
found a sheared engine mounting, and as my car is just four years old and only covered
20,000 miles they were at a loss to explain why. Since having it back in march I have
noticed that it was starting to play up again so I contacted the garage again who have
stated that this type of problem is most unusual! and what exactly am I doing with the car
to which my response was driving in to Shirley on the area roads this and an occasional
trip to Kings Norton is the sum value of my driving these days. I contacted my insurers
and their response was (in true essence I would be going against the wishes of the
majority and in their opinion would have no chance of a victory. Speed humps are here to
stay and I will have to put up with them. Having viewed my limited options I have decided
to dispense with my car and to go to Motability. At least they have the clout to
tell councils these things cause damage to vehicles.
Disabled Dhirley
Speed humps are a constant annoyance and are on the increase in Solihull. I feel mainly
for People who need to use the emergency services as these humps MUST slow the services
down. Speed humps also ruin the look of the road as well as increase pollution. When are
the views of the sensible motorist ever going to be heard?
David Addison
I have only just started learning to drive. I find that it is very easy to go over the
speed limits, speed bumps keep my speed down in lessons. However they are not the only
answer to speed. Solihull council need to do more, make people of all ages aware of what
speed does and the effects through meetings, showing disgusting photos etc. This works as
you have seen in the Daily Mail scaring drug users. I for one did not know that sort of
thing happened to Heroin users, now I do due to a simple picture. Its put me off it
altogether.
Robert Jordan
Speed humps are clearly not the answer. More time is spent looking for the next
opportunity to grind some more steel from your exhaust than looking for potential hazards,
namely pedestrians. Roads are for cars - why then does driving my car, (which I now
pay a fortune in taxes for the privilege) turn into a suspension mashing nightmare?
Who pays for my worn out shock absorbers and buckled alloys? Speed humps merely
promote the same brake/accelerate/brake philosophy of speed cameras - how is this safer? I
for one would also not relish the prospect of living by one the humps, listening to the
beautiful engine roar as another frustrated motorist attempts to actually get
somewhere. I agree wholeheartedly that speeding is dangerous, especially around
schools etc. but one drive past a school in the morning or afternoon shows that the
greater danger is presented by the parking of parents picking up children, forcing roads
down to one lane and creating a very effective sight screen. I am also convinced
that the next generation of Solihull children will be born without legs and will dissolve
in rain
Steve Cottrill
I welcome all boy racers. Every new driver needs to experience being able to drive fast as
they will get bored of it and just slow down any way in the end...what is the point of
having speed humps they just completely defeat the object of having a car. and yes it is
true that our nation has got a population of lazy fat kids who don't walk to school..
Anon
Having lived in Hurdis Road before the speed bumps, I find it amazing that anyone can
attack them, having lost three cats and seen countless near misses with pedestrians from
speeding motorists, I am fully in favour of traffic calming, as a previous poster said
walk or cycle to work, its cheaper and easier on the environment. Most of the traffic
through the suburbs of Shirley and Dickens Heath is from people using it as a short cut
from Longbridge, Maypole and Hollywood etc., there is a motorway that runs to Solihull,
why don't the motorists use that instead of the back roads of Shirley.
John White
Speed humps wouldn't be a necessity if people didn't drive like idiots always in a hurry.
Speed lumps can save lives and they are a necessity. How much is a child's
life worth? Slow down and get over the humps.
JEB
Humps create more pollution for the people living in the area....Allow the traffic to flow
as quickly as possible.
Gordon Floyd
I worked in Shirley until recently and, driving from Kings Heath, I was unable to find a
single route that did not have humps at some point. They are a seriously stupid idea and I
really feel sorry for the poor Emergency services. The sooner they are all removed, the
better. They may reduce pedestrian causalities but then so would putting 10 foot high
barriers up along all the kerbs! "But that's a silly idea" I hear you say
Ian Green
I understand the reason for humps, chicanes, etc, but I really think that they could cause
accidents rather than prevent them. Anything else found in the roadway, which affected the
traffic in the way that some of them do, would be considered a dangerous nuisance and
removed before they caused a serious problem.
Tricia
All speed humps should be removed immediately and proper traffic flowing brought into
action. The amount of damage these humps cause to vehicles is enormous even when driven
over at the correct speed. If there is a "rat run" then stop it up and make it
useless to use as such but still allowing residents to gain access. What we should be
doing is forcing traffic on to main roads that are built to take it. If children WALKED to
school like they did in the past instead of being driven maybe traffic would decrease by
50% (traffic is always very much lighter when children are on holiday) then there would be
no need for speed humps.
Phil Masters
I have followed this one for some time and have not yet come to a final conclusion. I
feel sorry for the folks who live in these areas as I used to live in Hurdis Road for 13
years, got out just in time! Seriously these humps should be sited where people actually
need them. Ideal sites are:- Outside Schools, Zebra crossings, Traffic Light intersections
and Roundabouts. These are zones where the Traffic needs to be slowed down. To site them
in what appears to be in an an haphazard way is daft. It encourages pedestrians to use
them as crossing points and forces Vehicles to drive in some strange positions on the
Road.
Mike Jenks - Shirley
Speed humps are a menace, the higher one wreck your suspension and the lower ones are
driven over as if they were not there. A much better alternative in housing estates would
be to block off the rat runs in the middle making two cul-de-sacs. This would make
them quieter for the locals and much more children friendly. Car users would be
forced on to the higher grade roads which, if necessary, could be policed with speed
cameras if motorists abuse the speed limits. The humps recently put along Knowle High
Street are a disgrace and any lowering of speed is due to the chicanes at the end rather
than the humps. I dread to think of the accidents which they will cause when the road is
icy in the coming winter.
Geoffrey Dean
I live opposite Burman Road and it is chaos. Having put in humps chicanes and the rest the
powers that be send buses down the road and the cars park at night in the wrong direction
as well as on the pavements. If Solihull would get rid of all their traffic calming and
just put a few of those cameras which flash up your speed that would be more effective. It
has just cost me a load of money to have my wheels re tracked and the guy at the garage
said "The humps and bumps in Solihull are really a bonus to us we make a fortune out
of the damage they continually do even if you go slowly over them. There is also more
traffic using the roads that don't have humps and that makes for more people, usually
surprisingly none drivers wanting the wretched things in these roads as well. Roads are
meant for the free un inhibited movement of people and are the means by which we get
quickly from A to B. I don't see speeding cars, the road opposite is so cluttered now that
everything just stops and cars pass each other in single file. Return the roads to their
original purpose that of getting people around and hopefully we will use less fuel move
more freely and be more tolerant of each other.
Jim Stevens
I now live in Vancouver, Canada but I originate from the Maypole. Speed bumps are great to
an extent.
Darren Hammond
I live in North London where there has been a proliferation of road humps in recent years.
I'm a very careful driver and wouldn't speed anyway but the road humps cause me
inconvenience and damage my car. That's quite ironic because I don't have a performance
car just a mid-sized Corolla saloon. If I had a Merc I wouldn't even notice them but in my
ordinarily car they cause big problems. Surely speed cameras are a superbly (and more
lucrative way) of controlling the menace of speeding?
Haroon Abbasi
I was thinking of asking for speed humps in castle lane to stop the speeding of racing
motorists through our little 'chicane'! what else can we do? maybe we could have those
rumble strips/speed patches/speed cameras. I'm open to suggestions but would like
something done to slow the speedsters but still be kind to the law abiding motorists.
Regarding Shirley, I only pass through rarely but thought the bumps were a good idea on
the pedestrian crossings only, until I read all of these comments. What about my
suspension? why don't the council simply install speed cameras? Don't tell me, it's the
money.....it's always the money.
T.A.E.
I totally agree with Barry Hood's comments. Speed humps are a motorcyclist's nightmare. I
do not condone rash drivers/riders and do believe that they should be corrected but speed
humps are not the answer (at least not the silly number of them recently placed). A
clearly marked speed hump should be placed only before an approach to a marked pedestrian
crossing encouraging pedestrians to use only pedestrian crossings. Vehicle users should
not pay (in maintenance costs) for other irresponsible road uses (Pedestrians).
J. Roger
In response to Mr. S. Wells, I thought about what he had written and came to the
conclusion that he is completely and utterly wrong. I would refer him to the comments made
previously by Barry Hood and Rob Perry for a reasoned argument.
Neil A. Bromley
Speed humps are a waste of rate payers money. They slow down emergency services who may
being on their way to a fire or other emergency. They are dangerous for any motorcyclist,
and as for them being bricked this sort of surface provides no grip in the wet and a
motorcyclist could be badly injured of killed. These humps should be removed.
To some extend humps a good idea where there are schools so car drivers slow down in these
areas but not on main road where traffic can build up increasing pollution levels.
Barry Hood
Road humps serve no useful purpose at all. Their installation shows a complete lack of
understanding of traffic calming possibilities. They are despised by emergency vehicle
drivers and one day a relative will win a court case against the local authority in
respect of injury/loss of life contributed to by the existence of these obstacles - and
then we end up paying yet again. The problem isn't the car, the problem is a total lack of
a sensible transport policy to provide an alternative to the car and a sensible road
system that facilitates access and takes into account the number of people involved.
Kevin Coleman
The sooner the better for Ralph Road and Arnold Road in Shirley. Pensioners up and
down these roads take their lives into their hands on a daily basis just trying to cross
from one side of a residential street to another. Help please before someone kills
my mother......
Terry George
Speed humps work. In Hull, for example, pedestrian casualties, especially among children
and the elderly, have fallen by 39% since the successful introduction of
"self-enforcing" road hump zones. If you don't want to damage your car driving
over speed humps, then Slow Down.
Rob Perry
If Harvey is so concerned for the cyclists, pedestrians and wear and tear on
the suspension units on his vehicle, I would suggest he WALKS the 2 mile journey to work
every day, and he would possibly do himself and others a lot more good.
Neil Bromley
ROAD HUMPS - Other contributors have said it all really. Road Humps are just another
example of the world going slightly mad. McAdam in the 1820s and others used their
ingenuity to provide us with "rut free" roads to improve the flow of traffic and
today's bright sparks come up with a plan to slow everything up again. Much the same
nonsense as politically correct "Chairpersons" etc Beam me up Scotty!
Malcolm Drew
With the recent installation of speed humps along Stretton Road in Shirley, I now have to
drive over 15 speed humps on my 2 mile journey to work. That's 150 bumps per week. My
expenditure on suspension parts is already getting silly. More disturbingly, these humps,
and particularly the islands sticking out of the side of Burman road, severely distract
drivers from the very pedestrians that they are supposed to protect. Cyclists don't stand
a chance. The worst of it is that the pairs of humps on Stretton Road are encouraging cars
to drive between them down the middle of the road (as does the Burman road scheme). If
these crazy schemes don't result in serious accidents it will be a miracle. Please could
someone tell me who is responsible for causing such chaos?
Harvey Smith
Humps aren't the answer. Educating the children and perhaps even some parents on where
they should let their children play is a better answer. The roads are not the place for
children to play - speed humps are not the answer. If humps were placed in my road I would
move house. I would never buy a house with humps in the road. I believe humps devalue
property, damage cars (suspension mainly) and encourage drivers to accelerate/brake too
often (concentrating on where the next hump in the road is diverts the drivers attention
from potential pedestrian hazards - whereas if there were no humps the driver would be
able to pay more attention to other roadside hazards). If the road is such a dangerous
place then don't play there! Put those metal barriers up you see on some street corners to
prevent people crossing the road except via the crossings. If this were the safety measure
used instead of humps I bet there would be less support for them because it's too
inconvenient to walk round.
Stuart Wells
The occasional hump in the road is OK. However in roads like Hurdis Road where there are
so many it is a real pain.
I don't think that they can do your car much good, perhaps the
council might consider reimbursing people for additional maintenance costs to their cars
as a result of having to travel along roads with humps.
Chris Jefferies
|
