Strakers Road Speed Humps

[DJKillaQueen]

There's a crucial point being missed here. How many collisions with vehicles and any other users have occured in say the past five years? Whilst yes, it's a multi-use space and the potential dangers are clear....the reality is that the data just doesn't support the necessity for speed humps.

Yet again an example of an authority unable to leave people to use their own common sense. Just because a road travels through a park does not devolve pedestrians of repsonsibility and good road sense, any more than drivers shouldn't drive according to the conditions.

How I got through my own childhood without a speed hump in sight I'll never know. But then again, I had the Green Cross Code man to drum road safety into my head. We seem to increasingly live in a society where people can no longer be trusted to apply common sense, and dare I say, where middle class pester power skews the perspective of those we elect to decide how the public money paid for with our taxes, is spent.

[Jeremy]

There have been several complaints about speeding vehicles, so "common sense" would suggest taking action now, instead waiting for something terrible to happen first.

[the-e-dealer]

Millions of people got through life without defibrillator s insulin penicillin aircraft, potatoes and tv. Ridiculous argument.

[henryb]

If it is people who are using as rat run that causing the problem then surely blocking it off would make more sense. Put a gate there.

[the-e-dealer]

Yeah and only allow resident rats to use it ! :-)

[DJKillaQueen]

It's not a rat run as it only leads to the Park's Car Park and the road itself is perhaps just over 150 metres long. In reply to Jeremy, there are speeding vehicles on EVERY road, so do we put humps on every road in Britain because there might one day be an accident? No we don't and most people would see the stupidity in the suggestion. I've lived opp Strakers road for 23 years and have never been concerned by the interaction of drivers and people crossing it. I cycle down it most days and have never felt worried by other drivers but could give you countless examples of roads that do see near misses every day. IMO all local authorities have gone speed hump mad.

[pipsky2008]

I agree, I think this is an unnecessary, silly and wasteful proposal. Where some speed reduction measures may be useful is the bend at Stewart Rd, where Cheltenham Rd meets Peckham Rye East. I have often seen drivers taking the near blind bend at around 30 - 40 mph or on occassion more, directly onto the zebra crossing.

[the-e-dealer]

So there we have. It some people have seen speeding. And deem it necessary and others have not seen speeding and deem it unnecessary. End of

[northlondoner]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's a crucial point being missed here. How

> many collisions with vehicles and any other users

> have occured in say the past five years? Whilst

> yes, it's a multi-use space and the potential

> dangers are clear....the reality is that the data

> just doesn't support the necessity for speed

> humps.

>

> Yet again an example of an authority unable to

> leave people to use their own common sense. Just

> because a road travels through a park does not

> devolve pedestrians of repsonsibility and good

> road sense, any more than drivers shouldn't drive

> according to the conditions.

>

> How I got through my own childhood without a speed

> hump in sight I'll never know. But then again, I

> had the Green Cross Code man to drum road safety

> into my head. We seem to increasingly live in a

> society where people can no longer be trusted to

> apply common sense, and dare I say, where middle

> class pester power skews the perspective of those

> we elect to decide how the public money paid for

> with our taxes, is spent.

You're missing the point DJKQ. The council doesn't need evidence to instal humps or any other "traffic calming" measures. Just a whim will do.

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL....you are right!

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi Northlondoner,

the reason why speed calming measures are required here and also in 20mph zones are that all roads with a limit less than 30mph have to be self enforcing, ie it needs to be made difficult for vehicles to go at speed (so as well as the practicality of wanting to keep vehicles at a low speed, there is also a statutory requirement too for traffic calming measures). I don't know the details of the exact requirements, however, this issue came up when speed humps were removed along a stretch of Ivydale Rd as larger vehicles were causing too much vibration. The pinch points and a speed table had to remain in order to have sufficient measures in order to enable the road ro remain within the 20mph zone.

Renata

[the-e-dealer]

I prefer the ignorant answer!

[DJKillaQueen]

Hi Renata...

Where is this statutary requirement you refer to? There is no statutary requirment in law to put traffic calming measures on all roads with low speed limits. Traffic calming measures are however 'permitted' under law and there are statutary requirements regarding 'process and form'. Southwark council doesn't exactly have a glowing record either in this area, with many 'improvements' in the area having to be dug up and ammended.

Strakers Road is a dead end. There have been no accidents on that road that I am aware of, (and no building being shaken by vibration) so maybe someone can point to the data that absolutely proves the need for humps and how the council came to the decision it has.

And it could also be said that when meaningful public services have been cut (like staffing the One O'Clock club) that it's suprising to see so much money atill being spent on road humps. It's not as though the borough is free of potholes or poor road either surfaces is it.

[the-e-dealer]

It is a Ministry requirement. Unfortunately. (td)

[DJKillaQueen]

The requirement is only that speed limits are applied. That can be via a road sign. There is no requirement that says humps (or any traffic calming measure) 'have' to be installed, any more than local authorities are 'required' by law to enforce speed limits.

[the-e-dealer]

No unfortunately they are required to put in measures to slow traffic when limit is below 30.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hello DJ and E_dealer.

Within a 20mph zone no point in the road can be more than 50m from a traffic calming feature (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002), except on a cul?de?sac less than 80 metres in length (I don't know Strakers Rd's length but it would be > 80m). I don't know of anything specific to roads with a speed limit lower than 20mph as in this case!

Humps are certainly not a good solution everywhere, however, I do welcome them in this location as it really important to keep speeds very low on this road.

Renata

[the-e-dealer]

Renata the rules you quote apply anywhere with a limit less than 30 mph.

[Renata Hamvas]

yes they do!

Renata

[James Barber]

I dont think that's true - Renata or the-e-dealer.

You can impliment 20mph speed limits without any measures if the 85th percentil speed is 24mph or below.

[the-e-dealer]

I may be thinking of 20 mph zones!

[DJKillaQueen]

James is right. Otherwise why isn't there a rush to implement speed humps on all roads with a limit of less than 30 mpr.

I'd still like to why in the light of NO accidents on Strakers Road there seems to be a belief that humps are needed.....Has any data been collated regarding the average speeds of motorists on this road? I would certainly have expected a survey to be in existence to show that speeding is a problem on this road. Where can we view the findings of such a survey?

[Renata Hamvas]

Ok,

apologies,

what I said is correct in most instances, exceptions are streets where the majority of vehicles go slowly anyway (due to the nature of the road). Last year also the legistlation was loosened a bit eg LAs can use flashing signs and also repeat signs on the road rather than on posts.

Renata

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

We shouldnt need people to be injured to know it makes no sense allowing people to speed through the park environment. 5mph is good enough for Dulwich Park which is enforced by restricting people from driving through the park. Peckham Rye has a car park further in so the road needs calming. Perhaps long term the car parking should be on the edge but for now a calmed park road seems best short term solution.

Short-term because road humps cause discomfort to some.

So what would be your long-term solution

[henryb]

> Short-term because road humps cause discomfort to

> some.

IMO they discourage cyclists which I thought the council was trying to encourage. What is irritating is that they could easily be done in a way which doesn't affect cyclists.