Or the "Great Bolton News Hump Huff Debate"
My in-laws told us about the on-going rumpus in the Bolton News over humps. I shall lump them together in quotes of articles pasted up from the "thisisbolton" site. It really warrant
but it show humps are no more an answer than a speed cam. The only real way to improve driving standards ist really to get the training curve und motivation to constantly improve und develop the skill of driving - which include learning how to
really use the new toys. (Lot of returners to cycling confess to being a bit fazed by the plethora of gears und how to use properly. All it take ist one session with a Bikeability teacher und "off you pedal at great gusto speed
)
Anyway as the French say "Revenons a nos moutons" (or as one local farmer put it.. l"et's get back to the sheep dip"
)
Bolton News last night's issue wrote:
Residents get hump over traffic calming
By Amanda Smith SPEED humps will be put on a residential street despite nearly half the neighbours objecting to the scheme.
Residents in Ainsworth Lane, Tonge Moor, were consulted about the traffic calming plans, along with proposals to introduce a 20mph speed restriction between the junctions of Archer Avenue and Bury Road.
Of the 103 residents who responded, just over 40 per cent said they did not support the proposals.
The executive member for environmental services, Cllr Nick Peel, approved the scheme.
He said: "This road is unique because half of it already has speed humps. This will effectively finish it off.
"There is poor visibility on this road and this will make people slow down. It is also used as a rat run and we hope this will make motorists use alternative routes. "
Introducing traffic calming measures was a condition of planning permission which was granted for housing on vacant land in nearby Jethro Street a number of years ago.
A report from by the council summarised the objections, which include claims the humps already on Ainsworth Lane are having little effect, they are unnecessary and cause more emissions and that cars create noise when driving over them.
Those supporting the idea said there is a need for traffic calming and it is long overdue.
One resident has vowed to continue to his fight against it.
Mike Tidy, aged 69, who has lived in Ainsworth Lane since the 1930s, said: "I plan to set up a petition to try to get the council to change their mind.
"Myself and a number of others have already objected, but they haven't listened to our concerns.
"Most vehicles travel on Ainsworth Lane and other roads at sensible speeds as the majority of drivers are responsible drivers. Humps cause damage to vehicles, cause discomfort to invalid passengers and slow down emergency services."
Cllr Hornby should get a grip of the humps debacle, then he will understand that the people of Bolton are suffering just at the whim of his colleagues because they think that speed humps are the be all and end all.
So - whatever happened to voice of the people then?
Ach! Forgot! We live in the "Them Democracy of New (but really Old) Labour policies which has more old "green of the envy" dogma than "new Green Wellies of the modern eco-warrior"
Then there these gems from the paper
pool piece of 8 week ago wrote:
Speed hump dangers on road
By Staff Reporter
ON approaching a village in France, a sign showing children crossing the road and a speed limit are seen. Motorists exceed the limit with a risk of an immediate fine and related delay.
Ist true. Also in Switzerland too. Beware the Wheely Bin. It not prissy Swissy cleanliness all the time
Quote:
In this country where there is a potential danger to children crossing a road, all drivers, law-abiding or not, have to suffer the curse of humps.
For whatever reason, the humps can cause personal injury to passengers, can delay vital services endangering lives in the process, increase pollution and damage components of vehicles.
A recent national newspaper story pointed out that a partial fracture of, say, a suspension component caused by a hump could later break completely at motorway speeds.
It could happen
The modern car ist rather delicate compared to the old heavy duties which did kill at 20 mph. (I know how heavy the little Moggies are compared to our sleek modern Jaguars.
who are designed to crumple to "protect und cushion a blow at impact up to 30 mph - but this depend on what you hit und where. The point ist for all to COAST und be responsible in any case und each do their bit to keep it safe.
BN wrote:
Humps might be saving lives - although evidence for this is inconclusive - but they might also be losing lives.
Far more research and empirical evidence is needed to justify the enormous cost of humps and the damage they cause.
Whatever conclusions are reached, the fact remains that both the innocent and the guilty are punished for an unlawful act. Some other method of speed control should be found
Training. On-going throughout driving/cycling/walking life
It stop the complacency set -in maybe
letter from a granny in this area of Bolton wrote:
There are a lot of children along Deane Church Lane, three of them being my grandchildren.
The humps are not there for decoration.
Maybe it will take an automated booming voice at each hump to below "slow down at the hump" before some of these drivers get the message. Or maybe it will take a child being killed.
But you supervise a child on busy road. You teach GREEN CROSS CODE each time you go a-walking.
I doubt they are "speeding" over the humps. More accelerating up between them which give "illusion of speed" to an unpractised eye.
(It not "peer reviewed" but more an ad hoc when we once put imitation humps on a small straight stretch on one track day on disused air field near to where one of family live which we booked for our pleasures. We found our pals did think there was speed on approach to humps only IG's little hairdryer pointed out that this not the case
)
article in Bolton papers which I think Mad Doc already posted somewhere on here in past wrote:
Time to get rid of the humps
By Staff ReporterBREIGHMET councillor Robert Wilkinson wants the council to carry out a full survey of all the humps in the borough after finding six out of 38 in his ward were illegal because they were too high.
Many motorists would support Cllr Wilkinson when he says most should be taken out, save those in accident backspots, and replaced with modern flashing signs warning drivers about their speed.
Humps were introduced to slow traffic down,
but in many cases all they have done is cause damage to car suspensions and inconvenience residents. They also create more pollution, according to the councillor. The council says it would
cost too much to carry out a full survey, and to reprofile the humps usually costs more than placing them them there in the first place.
Many drivers say their cars are being damaged by the humps. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate their worth and remove most of them, keeping only those humps in areas near schools and other accident blackspots that actually make drivers reduce excessive speed.
and then
Quote:
Speed humps exceeding height limit
By Readers' LetterCLLR Robert Wilkinson highlighted that there is clear evidence to suggest that many of the "speed humps" constructed within the borough over the last decade or so are substantially larger than intended (and than legislation permits), The Bolton News, April 24.
Despite this, Bolton Council is refusing to undertake a wholesale review of hump sizes, apparently on the grounds that this would be "prohibitively expensive".
As alluded to in the article, the expense which the council considers prohibitive is not the cost of the surveys themselves, but the cost of correcting the large number of defects that the surveys would undoubtedly find.
Historically, the council does not seem to have taken such a view on what can be considered prohibitively expensive when instructing home owners to demolish extensions because they had accidentally been built slightly too high, or slightly too close to an adjacent boundary.
This seems very much like "one rule for them and another for us". If anyone is concerned regarding the size (and hence legality) of speed humps in their area, I would advise them to write to the council's "freedom of information act" officer, Mr Carl Wiper, at the Town Hall.
The council's highways & engineering division should routinely take "as built" surveys of the various traffic calming schemes, as and when they are completed. (If they do not take such surveys, then there is clearly something very wrong with their control over the work undertaken. How do they authorise payment of the contractor, when they do not know that he has built what was requested?). I believe that, under the Freedom of Information Act, any individual within the borough can then request copies of these surveys (as I have just done for two schemes in my local area).
It should be noted that one of the more important issues regarding the size of any speed hump is the gradient of the slopes for the on and off ramps. I understand that these slopes are required to be less than 1 in 18, as any greater can result in damage to vehicles and their occupants.
A sound letter.
Quote:
Giving drivers the hump
By Readers' Letter
HAVING read Cllr Sean Hornby's letter regarding speed humps, I thought that maybe he had an understanding of the situation, then I realised that he has not even begun to grasp the issue at all.
Cllr Wilkinson, being an ex fire chief, knows only too well how important it is to get fire engines and ambulances to the addresses they are called to as a matter of urgency, and speed humps impede this.
It is Labour councillors who have stopped anything being done to lower the height of the humps that are too high. Labour set the budget and it is always that projects nearest to their hearts that come first and last.
This reader has since been elected herself to council per the in-laws as Tory.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
