On another thread Bogush was talking about the daft fact that loads of Cambs Village 40 limits were dropping to blanket 30 limits.
Our village was a prime example of this policy but at least they had a little sense.
The core part of the village was dropped to 30mph from 40mph close to the school, shop and main "on-street" housing. They did extend the 40 coverage at one end of the village, I was never in favour of this because I think it builds up frustration for commuters and gets the core area a greater chance of limit avoidance.
Also they put in some interactive "slow down" signs just after entering the 30 limit each end, having seen these operating for some months they have mixed success.
What I wanted but we didn't get was a couple of cobbled areas which would have become natural crossing points for pedestrians. They seemed to think they would be as unpopular as speed bumps...not so. Anyway there is at least one LA not going the whole way down the party line with all the most hated measures.
Traffic behaviour is now about as good as it will get. I honestly think you are going to have to put up with some sort of traffic calming (soft or hard)if you reject the idea of much reduced village limits.
Of course now we have to contend with the building of almost 100 new houses near the school...completely out of scale with the existing very small village developments. These are themselves likely to produce traffic movement issues greater than the small speed reduction they have achieved with the previous work.....and none of these new houses have sufficient car parking.....ho hum!
But planning decisions are another issue again.........!
David W
|
David,
I know your village of course and the interactive "slow down" signs have reminded me to slow down on one occasion and I have noticed that others take notice too, except the mindless idiots who completely ignore any advisory signs, and most of the mandatory ones. Those same idiots would slow right down for a speed camera at the same spot but then floor the pedal again as soon as they were past it, so nothing gained.
I like your idea of cobbles at pedestrian crossing areas, so long as they are smooth to walk on and don't break the springs of buses and shake up patients in ambulances, which conveniently leads me on to my next point ...
Speed bumps and chicanes, as found further on in the main town, are absolutely ridiculous. They lead you to look down at the road to steer your way around them, or over the least humped part, when you ought to be concentrating on the road ahead and any areas that children might suddenly emerge from. We have severely cut down our shopping visits to that particular town because these deliberate hazards annoy me so much.
I read that the MP for Peterborough is trying to get so-called traffic calming measures in all over the place - and then I read that she doesn't drive. Enough said.
Talking of speed limits, one of the daftest examples around here is on the A605 Whittlesey to Peterborough road. There is now a 40 mph speed limit along the whole 4 or 5 mile open stretch between the two built-up areas but just as you come up to a tight and potentially hazardous double bend the limit is lifted, then almost immediately AFTER the bend a 30 mph limit comes into force! So the only place that you can do 60 mph is on a dangerous double bend where there have been numerous accidents in the past! This is another example of ridiculous non-thinking by those who should know better and I, like very many others, do not adhere to the daft 40 mph limit on this part of the A605. Neither do I accept the invitation to drive at 60 mph through the double bend. I know I criticised those who always ignore speed limit signs (above) but if the authorities can't use common sense, then I will use my own!
|
re cobbles
be careful because most types will significantly increase braking distance because they do not provide the grip levels of a normal surface
this is dangerous and should not be encouraged
|
crazed,
Fair point about the grip on cobbles. It's just if some sort of calming *has* to be the option I favour those "cobble/paved/brick type" contrast areas with almost no height...just a visual and audible change.
Actually they have done something with a textured and coloured tarmac in the village but it isn't quite enough and is in the wrong place.
Dizzy,
Yes I too light up the (Northbound) sign from time to time. As you're already driving with care in the 40 it is harder to remember the change to 30 at that point. When it was all 40 limit before I would mostly be slowing down to below 30 for the area by the shop and parked cars just after the position of the "interactive sign". I guess it shows that one is in about the right place.
David W
|
|
|
In London they have gone for installing a cobbles type surface for the first eight or nine feet of side roads off main roads.
On a motorbike these give such reduced grip that you have to bring the speed down to the point that when making a sharp left turn into a narrow street there is a good chance of being rear-ended just before you turn, rather than being able to make a smooth turn under control at normal speed.
|
|
|
|
Dizzy says "...but just as you come up to a tight and potentially hazardous double bend the limit is lifted, then almost immediately AFTER the bend a 30 mph limit comes into force! So the only place that you can do 60 mph is on a dangerous double bend where there have been numerous accidents in the past!..."
Of course, if there were low speed limits in dangerous places where it was difficult to go quickly, there would be less chance of revenue generation when the speed cameras are no doubt later installed. No, low limits on potentially faster roads for revenue generation!
I know of many places where limits have been lowered to ridiculous levels on clear straight roads.
I just feel that the law will fall into disrepute to an ever increasing extent as these non-driving mealy mouths are allowed more and more influence over the majority.
|
|
A small village near me in South Lincs is too small to warrant a speed limit thru it, for whatever reason. There are signs saying "Please drive slowly thru our village" which are generally complied with by drivers. As one goes thru the unrestricted village there are 50 yard long cul-de-sacs with 30 limits, turning off the unrestricted thru road! What is that all about? You can legally do 60 thru the village and there is a 30 limit on a road you couldn't do 10 mph on!
|
|
|
A few examples of traffic "calming" (irritation) created by people who must be non-drivers or masochists (or maybe they don't use these "improved" roads themselves):
In Ashurst, for a few years there appeared a jutting out island across one lane of the single carriage road to stop traffic entering the village down the hill from proceeding if there was any traffic coming in the opposite direction. This dangerous obstruction was finally removed some time ago. (Whose money had been wasted on this project / experiment? - not those who thought of it!)
A similar obstruction has sprouted in Billingshurst. (If any member of the public were to lay kerb stones across the road they would rightly be prosecuted.) Of course, this "calming" measure had already caused at least one accident.
In Ashtead village, where there was once a straight, pretty avenue, there is now an incredible number of chicanes and bollards all the way down. It's like a slalom now, zig-zagging down the road!
On the former dual carriageway from Leatherhead to Dorking, a large chunk of one lane has been removed to create a single lane. Of course, reducing this dual carriageway built before the war when there were hardly any cars, to one lane at a time when there are many more cars causes much traffic congestion, sometimes for miles. More pollution, more frustration..terrific!
On a back road near Tunbridge Wells, patches of red cobble stones were added to mark the boundaries of a village. (Why?) What makes this seem even more pointless, these slippery-when-wet stones were placed on a corner! (Surely a non-driver at work here!) The stones survived for a while before being removed.
Similar cobbles have been added in Charlwood village, near Gatwick airport. Nearby residents complain about the type noise they create. And they are slippery when wet.
All around, wherever you may care to go, you can be sure that if there is any road where you can be in top gear for a minute or more, there will be some twit thinking "how can I create some form of obstruction here?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few years ago an extensive traffic calming scheme was planned in a nearby and fairly affluent area. This would clearly have caused substantial traffic diversion (despite the council's denials) so we did a little digging. Surprise, surprise we discovered that according to the council's own criteria (which were mainly accident based) the measures costing £300k'ish weren't justified. It transpired that the residents group behind the scheme had long enjoyed a favourable relationship with the council and had traditonally been the recipients of more than their fair share of council resources. We decided to challenge the scheme on the basis that a) the measures weren't justified and b) they would divert substnatial amounts of traffic onto far busier and more dangerous roads. We loobied councillors, MP's etc. and got the local press involved and at a very heated public meeting succeeded in getting the measures greatly scaled down (much to the annoyance of its sponsors!) With recognition of the previously denied knock on effects in the form of additional far more sensible measures in neighbouring streets. The truth is that in many cases traffic calming in the form of physical measures particularly are used by certain people to remove traffic from their areas and this has more to do with house prices than road safety. In our case there were far more needy areas for traffic calming which had been overlooked fo years on the basis of lack of funds but in this case the council had been prepared to spend a vast amount of money o benefit a 'favoured' area with no serious traffic issues. My advice to people affected is to look at the schemes and see what the knock on effects re likely to be. If the schemes are unfair, unjustified or plain stupid then ARGUE YOUR CASE !! Publicity is the key especially in cases like our where the scheme had far more to do with 'looking after our own' than reducing accidents. To my knowledge our was the first time anyone had successfully challenged our local council on the issue of traffic calming - not bad for an area which wasn't originally even going to be consulted about the scheme !!! Many red faces amongst the council officers/members, much annoyance amongst the 'favoured few' and common sense restored - it's well worth doing.
|
|
To add to the above post, quite a lot of 'traffic calming' or more accurately traffic removal schemes don't become public knowledge until it is too late. Joe Public is not well informed about local authority affairs and often the committees responsible for these decisions are small and comprised of people who live in/represent the areas concerned. In our campaign we found publicising the proposals and putting the other side of the story very effective because a) it generated a fair amount of anger and reaction in other areas and b) other councillors who had previously been unaware of the scheme found out about it and realised how unfair and unjustified it was. The local authority had in fact canvassed the opinions of the people who supported the scheme but had not been so keen to obtain the views of those around the periphery who would have suffered most. During our campaign I found the public's ignorance of basic council affairs quite staggering with a degree of apathy to match. This is what you have to change in order to ensure that the wider view is taken into consideration as opposed to the views of the powerful minorities who have the ear of the right polticians and get what they want almost on the nod.
|
Volvoman,
We were obviously quite lucky in that our planned scheme was brought to the village school hall on a couple of afternoons with the LA Highway Engineers there to answer queries.
Also in that they did keep to contrast strips rather than speed bumps....and the 40 was only reduced to 30 for part of its length.
Having said that, and for all the apparent consultation, the scheme was introduced 100% as they planned it without any of the public input considered.
Perhaps it was perfect anyway?????
David W
|
|
David, we initialy had the same response from the Traffic Engineers who were extremely patronising and unhelpful for some time. After a period when the realised we weren't going anywhere and our arguments were sound they started to take on board our suggestions and to be fair to them, quite a few were actually implemented. The problem is that they're not used to listening to the public and tend to believe they always know best even if they have no local knowledge whatsoever. One of the benefits of our campaign was a change in the way things were done in that department and consultation has incresed dramatically since. The problem of powerful people having undue influence on such matters will always be there and at the end of the day the elected members make the final decisions on any such schemes. However if the decision makers come to understand that the people won't simply accept what's being done, will get involved, will argue their case and will publicise illogical, costly and unwarranted traffic schemes they are going to think twice before spending tens of thousands of pounds installing road humps where they're not justified freeing up resources for those areas which really need treatment.
|
To quote Volvoman "...The problem is that they're (Traffic Engineers) not used to listening to the public and tend to believe they always know best even if they have no local knowledge whatsoever.
Yes, in a recent crazy attempt to stop traffic entering a roundabout near Dorking, the engineers narrowed an entry road to one lane. There were immediate traffic jams created, backing up past the nearby school entrance.
The scheme was altered a few weeks later, how much money was wasted I don't know, but the layout was not returned to its previous state - additional traffic delays are still caused because the road is still narrower.
In a public meeting the traffic engineer responsible said that the computer model used to assess the impact of the scheme had failed to take into account the vehicle traffic of the nearby school - some 100 yards away! Yes that's right, he didn't take into account the school! At least he admitted the mistake, but it makes you wonder how some people get (and keep) their jobs.
|
With a lot of these schemes they COULD try it out for an experimental period by using cones etc. before they go to the expense of digging up and moving the kerbs.
But they don't. I can't understand why not!
|
James and Brian - yes it is quite incredible that they rely on computers rather than the local knowledge of people who live on/near these roads and could give very valuable and much more reliable input. Having said that, the public often tend to whinge after the event when they haven't bothered to get involved in the first place. As regards budgets etc. they do of course need to spend their budget or they lose the money next year. This accounts for the vast amount of works which tend to be commenced just before the end of the finanical year. Finally, if those of you who are employed by companies were to make as many costly errors and misjudgements as some of these people you would lose your jobs ! The worst that happens at local authority level is that you get promoted a bit slower ! There is an argument which says that these people justify their own existence by constantly implementing, redesigning and often removing these schemes i.e. now we've cocked it all up we need more money to put it right ! It's very easy to absolve yourself of any blame for what has been done by relyng on a computer model and blaming it when things go pear shaped !
Oohh I am cynical aren't I.
|
|
|
|
