I have received an email from the Prime Minister's office explaining why the government intends to continue encouraging speed humps. Vehicles are not much damaged if they go slowly, the message said in essence. Passengers are not much disomfited or inconvenienced. The emergency services are consulted before humps are put in.
So there.
It's true only 6,600 people put their names to the thing. Don't know why they bothered really. Idiotic of them.
|
Ahh yes, the reply went straight into my trash folder. Sometimes hotmail amazes me with its prescience and judgement. The response can be found at this link:
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12529.asp
As long as a visual inspection shows no wear and tear, that's ok ('go on bob, drive it over and we'll have a look..') and the fact that your next MOT will pick up the damage (and you'll pick up the bill) means that the humps don't endanger your safety so that's ok too.
I'll leave you with a wonderful quote that probably says it all:
The Government's traffic calming policies are evidence based. That is to say each form of traffic calming undergoes vigorous tests and trials before they are introduced nationally.
This house believes the above to be subjective spinning nonsense - discuss...
|
|
I do love the way in which our government gives us the opportunity to express a view on the pm's web site - only to turn round and then tell you they will continue doing what they want anyway - democracy at it's best.
|
|
|
|
Yes, just received it. It would have been quicker if they'd just told me that the second word was "off".
JH
|
Seriously - what did you expect them to do?
And for that matter, what did you expect them to say in their response?
And has anyone on this site read the TRL report 614 that the government response refers to? I myself am a little reluctant to fork out the £35 for the PDF copy.
|
Seriously - what did you expect them to do?
I didn't think for one minute that they'd consider replacing speedbumps with something less damaging, but I didn't expect them to deny all evidence of any damage in such crass and subjective terms. Aks any mechanic about the upturn in work due to suspension, tracking and alignment issues since speedbumps became more common and the picture is pretty clear, yet as far as the government are concerned it doesn't happen.
Sadly I can't see speedbumps disappearing at any point because many people just wouldn't slow down voluntarily and will only do so following the threat of damage or a financial penalty. It's hardly surprising that cameras are the controls of choice really...
|
in my local London Borough they've removed all the speed humps, when the administration changed back to Tory. Red Ken got the ache about it and tried to deny them a big chunk of road safety budget. The council said they'd only remove them over a period of time when that particular road needed re-surfacing......but amazingly all the roads with speed humps in them have all been re-surfaced.
There are plenty of more efficient ways of traffic slowing than speed humps (e.g. flashing signs). They've also taken out all those stupid chicanes that everyone used to ignore anyway.
I'm not aware of increases in road safety problems.... and with the nastiness of local politics i'm sure the local papers would have been full of it, if there were.
Having cost me nearly 800 quid for front ball joints and suspension bushes attributed to speed humps i'm glad they've gone.
|
|
|
|
|
what i cant get my head around is , why do they put speed bumps on approaches to give way junctions, its just the council spending money so as not to get reduced funding for the next years budgeting
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/d9be51de970c4109efbdaadc0b2ee9a4/4b74dca515a7a68cb159b0853bbd6d7c.jpg)
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/e33e245b6c78f520dbad3a16902e244e/3673ec8094fede89c304980a53330ef2.jpg)
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/1d865fc9133b06c245664241957557da/89ea8b976d62e6bca6837c53b57f1f64.jpg)
