By torypaul2010 at 18:08 on 01/05/10
Who would like to see the back of the speed humps in wildern Lane?
By torypaul2010 at 18:08 on 01/05/10
ReportNo keep them.......its the only way to slow people down. Fast traffic down that road combined with the steep camber is dangerous for the school kids. Blue Circle buses by the way are the worst offenders. If traffic is not calmed I believe that someone, possibly a child, will end up in an Emergency Department/ICU sooner or later.
Both the speed humps in Wildern Lane and the pinch points in Maunsell Way have decreased average traffic speeds in both roads, which was the objective in their introduction. Sadly, the County Council which is the authority responsible for our roads, does not support variable speed limits.
By keithhouse at 21:34 on 02/05/10
ReportThank you for your comments Keith, and welcome to the discussion. Firstly can you tell us your position within the County Council? Secondly would you personally support variable speed limits?
By torypaul2010 at 21:46 on 02/05/10
ReportThe accident record on Maunsell Way is, I understand, not significant. I would not support a variable speed limit for Wildern Lane, though this approach might be useful in other places. Over 2000 schoolchildren use Wildern Lane at various times of the day, and increasing the speed limit would only increase through-traffic on the road. My position at Hampshire County Council is Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, i.e. the "opposition". The County Council has generally not supported lower speed limits, such as 20mph speed limits near schools, but tends to encourage advisory campaigns promoting 20mph as a maximum speed. The problem with this is that it is not enforceable and gives the illusion of safety despite 30mph (or higher) limits remaining in force.
By keithhouse at 22:04 on 02/05/10
Report
Curious to know what "not significant" actually means Keith. Such phrases always set alarm bells ringing...!
I'll admit that when I see a "20 is plenty" sign, when doing my job, I slow down if I'm in the midst of the school run but outside those times I think "20 is plenty, but thirty is legal -stuff the nanny state..!", so I (legally) drive past at 30 - if road conditions and other hazards permit.
Speed limits of 20mph at times when there's no reasonable justification for them, just alienate motorists...
I was being cautious - no stats have been presented showing any increase in accidents! One of the problems with Wildern Lane is that the school is effectively open from 8am to 10pm so the lower limit has some sense outside what would have once been seen as normal school hours.
By keithhouse at 22:21 on 02/05/10
ReportMmmmmmm I would regard any incident involving road safety as significant! However, at least you and the County Council seem to be on the same page. My Children attend Botley C of E, I don't see any humps on the main road through Botley though, my Children will be attending Wildern when old enough so I have a vested interest in road safety on this strech of road, I would argue that the Botley road has more traffic on it at school times too which goes much faster & includes all forms of transport...... my position stands, there is no need for humps throughout the whole stretch of Wildern. I would be in favour of a better solution, that appeals to parents, children, residents and motorists.
By torypaul2010 at 22:27 on 02/05/10
ReportThe difficulty with Botley Road / Grange Road / Broad Oak is that it is a lorry route and thus there's not a lot the County can do about it. The problems there will become even worse if there is major development around Boorley Green. A transport study on this area is due to be published by the County Council after the election.
By keithhouse at 22:34 on 02/05/10
Report
Wildern lane seems to be covered be a mandatory 20mph limit, given the type of signage, rather than an advisory "20 is plenty".
So do we really need speed humps as well as the madatory speed limit: don't forget that some residents find the noise of the repeated thumping over the speed humps a problem.
Whilst Wildern School is open from 8am to 10pm, there are clearly some peak times, i.e. when lollipop people are needed. That's the time when the 20mph limit is unquestionably justified. Outside of those times, I'm not persuaded it is necessary (but I observe it).
As for the pinch points along Maunsell Way, can I infer that there hasn't been a reduction in accidents either...?
I'm confused, I understand that the Liberal Dem's proposed the 6000 homes development at Boorly Green, but you mention that this would cause further traffic issues in Botley. Before proposing the development, perhaps you should have considered the impact on road safety and volume first. As Botley is a small village, articulated lorries should'nt be allowed through it anyway. I agree with regard to the noise and disturbance that vehicles hitting the humps cause in wildern, as residents have told me so.
By torypaul2010 at 22:46 on 02/05/10
ReportMay i add and formally ask that the Council with immediate effect errect metal barrier bars either side of the pedestrian crossing outside Botley C of E, as large groups of Children wait here for the lights to change, to have no barrier here is dangerous on such a narrow road, it will only take one child to stumble here to cause a fatality!!!!
By torypaul2010 at 22:54 on 02/05/10
Report
Yes ToryPaul2010. I've seen children toddle obliviously across the road here when out and about in the van, and I've only been doing the job for 3.5 months. Fortunately I was alert...
Parents always seem to drag them back and suitably admonish/educate the children, but straying a couple of feet into the road is all it takes for an accident...
Inevitably, this seems to have developed into a political point-scoring match. The question was "Who would like to see the back of the speed bumps in Wildern Lane". Why would anyone? Does anybody seriously think it would be a good idea to remove them? For what purpose? To allow drivers to belt along at whatever speed they fancied? Sadly, they are a necessity as too many drivers believe that roads are a means of getting from A to B as quickly as possible. They're not. They are for convenience, not speed. I just got back from California, where without exception (and without the need for speed bumps) traffic drives slowly through built-up areas. It was refreshing to see such responsibility evident.
The speed humps are a problem because;
1. They don't work: Mums in their 4x4s doing the school run can sail over them completely untroubled, as can refuse lorries, buses and all larger vehicles.
2. Some of the humps are quite fierce, potentially causing damage to the smaller vehicles, superminis etc...
3. The suspension thumping creates a lot of noise, 24 hous a day troubling the residents who live next to them..
4. There's a mandatory 20mph limit, so speed humps are unnecessary. All you've really got to do to enforce 20mph is install an average speed camera in Wildern Lane, but that's another argument...!
Of course roads are there to enable us to get from A to B as quickly as possible. If it is decreed that as quickly as possible means 20mph, so be it, but we mustn't lose sight of what the roads are built to do. Get us from A to B....
Maybe easing the fiercest humps, there is one particularly nasty one that I can think of, would be a good starting point.
And I notice that they were replaced in the last year or so, once again without any sort of consultation on whether they actually worked or not, whether they created unforseen problems or whether HedgeEnders still wanted them. As has been said elsewhere, that lack of consultion needs to change too...
The County Council rarely consults on this sort of project, where it considers it is simply replacing worn-out humps. For Paul's benefit, the 6000 houses around Botley were not proposed by the Lib Dems. The paper that first promoted the concept was written by County Council planners. We are still waiting for their report (5 years on) on how the traffic issues linked to such a development would be handled.
By keithhouse at 15:46 on 03/05/10
Report
Might there be some merit in HCC consulting in future...?
If we've got to make savings in public expenditure over the next few years, not least to get my Council Tax bill down, why replace worn-out humps if the consensus is that they are not liked or wanted or fit for purpose...?
Obviously it would need to be an comparatively inexpensive consultation. Not spending half a million on consultants to do the research...!
I'm glad TGRWorzel acknowledges the need for something to enforce the 20mph limit. I'm not wedded to speed bumps, and would be quite happy to see an average speed camera - the problem is that's probably too expensive. I'm afraid it's not enough to say the mandatory 20mph limit makes speed bumps unnecessary. There was a 30mph limit there before, but it didn't stop one car that I witnessed go down there at around 50-60mph, lose control and mount the pavement as he spun round. Anybody unfortunate enough to have been standing there at the time would have been wiped out. Speed bumps are a small price to pay for preventing that kind of incident if drivers can't be trusted to obey the limit (which regrettably, they can't).
Not all 4x4s are driven by mums on the school run TGR!
"1. They don't work: Mums in their 4x4s doing the school run can sail over them completely untroubled, as can refuse lorries, buses and all larger vehicles."
and reg_nerps
"Speed bumps are a small price to pay for preventing that kind of incident if drivers can't be trusted to obey the limit (which regrettably, they can't)."
They may be a small price to pay but they clearly are not working as they should as the comments have shown. Far too many vehicles have been observed driving over them at 30mph or more for us to say they "work". Something needs to be thought of which has more of an impact - what that is I can't say but it's obviously not the existing configuration of speed humps.
I remember sitting on a bus travelling up Wildern Lane and being startled by screeching tyres and the smell of burning rubber as a Citroen Paxo doing a lot more than 20mph (despite the humps) only just avoided the bus...
What the Paxo was doing was tearing down the dotted line, in the gaps between the humps, obviously completely unaffected by them.
Because they're a compromise, designed to allow certain types of "trusted" vehicle to pass unhindered, the humps are absolutely useless...
Neither traffic calming system slows down white van driver or buses - both of whom seem to behave like they have a law unto themselves. They can hurdle speed bumps and are aggressive through the pinch points...I actually think the pinch points are a disaster waiting to happen.
Something needs to slow them down though.
I have one lad at Botley, one lad at Berrywood, who goes to Wildren next year. I live one side of Maunsell Way, my ex lives the other - I'd really like to see traffic slowed.
I drove through one of those 'no signs, no kerns, no road markings' vilalges the other day - it was kind of wierd, but I did slow down without being told...
By Adrian Garside at 11:00 on 21/05/10
ReportThanks for your comments Keith, I live by a simple rule in life “Never look at what a person says or does, always look for the reason why?" As for political points scoring, after getting almost half Keith’s votes, I have to say that I’m extremely pleased, as not many people know that I agreed to stand as a candidate one week prior to the election being called. What concerns me and should concern other residents in Hedge End is that we have a fair and proper decisions on issues that affect us, as things stand we have too many people batting for the same team, so debate and decisions are short and are made with the Captains intentions leading the others, fair? Ermmmmm....... well Hedge Enders - you make up your own minds. The speed humps don't work, not for transport not for residents, Sweden has the best safety record in Europe, many if not all of their roads have outside and centre barriers, made of a wire/post construction, having spent some time doing research (as I said I would) I would adopt this in all roads which have heavy traffic and schools on them, this would fix the problem once and for all, and furthermore would be financially beneficial in the long term too, you never know, that with this type of construction, being maintenance free....... It may even reduce our council tax.
By torypaul2010 at 10:32 on 22/05/10
Report
325 - 450 p day
300 to 350
60000.0k - 75000.0k pa + Benefits