CURRENT TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY

Objective OK: Most people are in agreement with the objectives of traffic calming but many of the methods currently implemented are disagreeable and unpopular. Road humps, kerbstone appendages, priority give-way schemes, out-of-place roundabouts yield many disadvantages compared to modern technological systems such as active warning signs, or clearly marked, non-exploitative, speed cameras and even a few policemen on the beat.

Traffic Calming Objective? The objective of traffic calming is to LIMIT the speed of the speeding motorist in areas where deemed necessary. The objective is not to force vehicles to stop and start unnecessarily, hamper emergency vehicles, make travelling on the roads more uncomfortable, cause additional congestion, additional parking problems and waste people's time and money. However, that is currently what we are doing!

The Wrong Road: Speed humps are highly unpopular and uncomfortable. They are bad for emergency vehicles, not uniform in their effect on different vehicles and they result in additional noise, vehicle wear and tear and additional pollution. They are therefore GREEN UNFRIENDLY! Intrusive kerbstones and other sprouting appendages that jut into the road are in the least, an inconvenience and waste of taxpayers' money and, at worst, a positive hazard and danger to unsuspecting motorists. They also result in bottlenecking.

The Wrong Priority: Blocking roads with priority give-way schemes is completely nonsensical. As well as forcing traffic onto the wrong side of the road, these schemes hold people up and force vehicles to stop and start, when the only necessary objective is perhaps to slow people down. They also promote speeding in some instances as, when the way is clear, vehicles often speed up to clear these obstacles before another vehicle can get there first, thereby, defeating the object. They too result in additional pollution, vehicle wear and tear and congestion and are therefore also GREEN UNFRIENDLY!

Backward Thinking: These kinds of measures are can be seen to be backward and out of place when there we when know there are better, more efficient solutions on offer. It can be argued, therefore, that the various authorities are acting irresponsibly by spending money on, and allowing the introduction of, such schemes when there are superior and highly preferable alternatives available which can achieve a better and fairer result without all of the disadvantages and discomfort. Do we really imagine our roads to be covered from top to bottom in humps and bumps and constricted by kerbstone appendages in twenty years’ time? We would prefer not!

Back To The Future: Rather than spending money on archaic nonsensical schemes that make the quality of our roads worse, surely it would be preferable to get back to the future and invest in the development of modern, non-exploitative, technological systems in places where deemed necessary! There are all sorts of options on offer and all of them are better by far than what our local authorities are currently doing.

No More Inconvenience: No more being made to suffer such lumps, humps, bumps, obstacles and carbuncles (as well as the pot-holes) on our road surfaces, and a reduction in noise pollution, pollution, congestion and vehicle wear and tear. Less inconvenience, time wasting and emergency vehicles will be able to get where they need to be quickly and unimpeded. Everyone's a winner!

Even Cheaper! As the price of technology comes down, it will even be cheaper, as well as far more efficient to use modern technological systems. Of course we will then have to foot the bill to have all these humps and bumps removed if we ever want to drive on smooth roads again. However, with the current archaic thinking of our local authorities it looks like we are condemned to live in the realm of Fred Flintstone for some time to come yet.

That's A Fine! If society wants to penalise the minority speeding motorist who can be seen to be driving dangerously, that's a fine, but leave the rest of us out of it. For years we have had to put up with pot-holes in our roads all over the place and the authorities have been very slow or unable to find the resources to have them filled. It's amazing how much plop they've managed to find to put lumps and humps all over the place, and we've still got the pot-holes!


DISADVANTAGES OF SPEED HUMPS AND CUSHIONS

  1. Uncomfortable for people travelling over them
  2. Dangerous to injured persons in an ambulance
  3. Cause damage and impediment to fire engines and other emergency vehicles
  4. Are not uniform in the effect they have on different vehicles
  5. Larger vehicles, vans and 4 x 4's can straddle speed cushions at over 70mph with no problem
  6. Small cars and laden goods vehicles have to slow to under 10mph to cross them safely
  7. Cause additional wear and tear on vehicles
  8. Cause additional pollution
  9. Cause 'trailer banging' and other additional noise when crossed by lorries and laden vehicles
  10. Are unwelcome by the majority of people
  11. Are a danger to motorcyclists as they result in motorcyclists losing control and coming off
  12. Are vehicle and environment unfriendly

DISADVANTAGES OF PRIORITY GIVE-WAY SCHEMES AND KERBSTONE APPENDAGES

  1. Cause vehicles to stop unnecessarily when the only necessary objective is to slow vehicles down
  2. Cause more congestion through bottlenecking
  3. Cause more pollution through vehicles having to stop and start
  4. Cause more noise through vehicles having to stop and start
  5. Cause more wear and tear through vehicles having to stop and start
  6. Are viewed as a nonsensical nuisance and a waste of public money by the majority of people
  7. Encourage vehicles to speed in an attempt to clear the obstacles before oncoming vehicles
  8. Are a positive hazard and danger to unsuspecting motorists in certain instances
  9. Do not achieve the prime objective of limiting the speed of a vehicle
  10. Are vehicle and environment unfriendly

ADVANTAGES OF CLEARLY MARKED, NON-EXPLOITATIVE, SPEED CAMERAS

  1. Force traffic to slow to the appropriate speed achieving the prime and appropriate objective
  2. Do not impede emergency vehicles, allowing them to get where they need to be speedily and efficiently
  3. Are uniform in their effect on different types of vehicle, therefore, no vehicle is immune
  4. Are not dangerous to injured persons travelling in ambulances
  5. Do not slow traffic more than is necessary and are therefore green friendly
  6. Do not force traffic to stop unnecessarily and are therefore green friendly
  7. Do not cause discomfort for the motorist
  8. Do not cause inconvenience for the motorist
  9. Do not cause 'trailer banging' from articulated lorries
  10. Do not result in unnecessary vehicle wear and tear
  11. Do not promote speeding so as to 'dodge the obstacle'
  12. Do not allow people to get away with offending
  13. Do not put vehicles on a collision course with each other
  14. Do not present a danger to motorcyclists
  15. Are much more vehicle and environment friendly

GREEN FRIENDLY! Means achieving the necessary objectives of traffic management and traffic calming in the most efficient way with the minimum of additional noise, vehicle pollution, congestion, fuel usage, time-wasting, vehicle wear and tear.