Speed bumps

[Guest]

As you may have read in Friday's EN the Council has plans to install hundreds of new speed bumps throughout the city to help enforce new 20 mph speed limits. See:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=28982004

This includes all the streets from Bridge Street to Morton Street on the north side of Portobello High Street as well as the whole of the Magdalene/Bailies estates.

As a resident of Rosefield I was delighted when the decision was taken to close off the junction of Rosefield Avenue and the High Street, thus removing a very dangerous rat-run. As a member of the Towerbank Safer Routes to School group I was delighted at the raft of road safety and traffic calming measures, including Bath Street, that resulted from that campaign. However, the proposals for the north side of the High Street do seem a bit excessive, bearing in mind that it would be almost impossible to exceed 20 mph in many of these streets in any case. I'm all for slower speeds (in fact it's what I do for a living) but this seems like overkill to me.

Would be interested to hear what other people have to say on the subject, particularly those who live in the streets concerned. This is Lawrence Marshall's view by the way:

I've no difficulty with an area-wide 20 mph zone north of Portobello High Street but I would very much question any expenditure on road bumps, etc. in many of the streets listed - they simply don't require them! Indeed, to construct bumps in these locations would bring the Council into disrepute. Far better, if money is available, to put bumps in streets such as Windsor Place and Mount Lodge Place as well as, in the Craigentinny bungalow area, Nantwich Drive and Kekewich Avenue - all streets subject to rat-running at present (though traffic lights at the King's Road roundabout might help the latter two).

[Gemini]

We have requested traffic calming measures from the Local Representation for the Fishwives Causeway/Baileyfield Road area since 1996 and indeed had an article written in the Porty Reporter 1998 (summer edition)

The area, as is well known, is surrounded by constant flowing traffic in restricted space. Brammell Laidlaw are guilty of testing out their vehicles in this small cul-de-sac, the Causeway and adjacent industrial estate.

Perhaps if proper signage was implemented at High Street and the roundabout at the Causeway this would also prevent the constant stream of HGV's 'becoming stuck' with no alternative but to reverse back along Baileyfield Road and down the Causeway.

[Guest]

We now have Maureen Child's response on this subject as follows:

The priority need for speed reduction measures - not necessarily 'bumps' - is based on our determination to ensure vehicle speeds reduce below 20 mph where speed kills. That would almost guarantee that anybody who gets hit by a car will survive. It will reduce collisions in our local residential streets by 50% . That is what a South East Edinburgh scheme has already achieved. These new proposed schemes would be the next stage.

The best way of achieving accident reduction and saving lives in individual streets in each area is still open for discussion with local citizens and the assessment of professional officers. Advisory speed limits (e.g. in the Magdalene estate) don't work and we need engineering works to make it happen. If there are individual streets in any of the areas where 20 mph is already the top speed, no traffic calming measures will be installed in these streets and all they will get is "a lick of paint and a 20 mph sign at most."

The proposals will be subject to consultation and detailed design, with no work starting until April 2005 for completion in 2006.

[Sandra]

I live in Marlborough Street, one of the streets listed as going to have speed bumps. It is a bit of a joke as it is impossible to go down this narrow street fast! Especially as more often than not there are cars parked on either side of the street.

Will this not reduce already limited parking spaces?

[Epykat]

I live in Marlborough Street, one of the streets listed as going to have speed bumps. It is a bit of a joke as it is impossible to go down this narrow street fast! Especially as more often than not there are cars parked on either side of the street.

Will this not reduce already limited parking spaces?

It's a master plan by the Council. They took away loads of parking spaces with the quaint little wheelie bins and now they're taking away even more with the speed bumps - therefore when nobody has a car in Portobello they can claim a great success!!

[Beach Babe]

I also live in a narrow street

after my experience today, I would also like to suggest that very large vehicles are restricted from entering these streets in some way. My car, parked blamelessly, has been well and truly smashed by a 7.5 tonne lorry driving carelessly down a very narrow street.

IMHO, speed bumps would have made absolutely no difference to this happening. And various people that I know who are already living with speed bumps say that traffic noise is actually made much worse due to cars slowing down then revving their engines several times whilst driving a short distance

[Guest]

Here's an extract from an email I received recently from Andrew Burns, executive member for Transport:

I know that whilst many members of the public welcome the improved neighbourhood safety achieved through traffic calming I also understand the concern of a few who are anxious to know how the details of the schemes will affect them. The next stage will be the detailed design process and this will identify the streets that actually require the installation of traffic calming features. The regulations governing 20mph zones specify fairly precisely the spacing of traffic calming features on the roads throughout the zone. The Council while complying with the regulations will however seek to minimise the severity of the required features.

Consultation will take the form of a leaflet drop to every household within the proposed 20 mph zone. The leaflet will detail the area to be treated, offer an opportunity to view the detailed construction plans and, will contain details of to whom comments should be made.

I'm sure that the Council will take a common-sense approach to this. There are some streets - Bridge Street for example - where road engineering measures to reduce traffic speed are badly needed, while there are others where speed bumps would be ridiculous. I'm sure that local residents will not miss the opportunity to make these facts known at the appropriate time.

[Epykat]

Will Brighton Place be included in the speed bump programme? I walk to and from work via Brighton Place as of course do many, many schoolchildren (in their case sometimes four times a day) and the speed the cars race up and down is horrendous. It really is an accident waiting to happen. Speed bumps would be brilliant to slow them down at least between the High Street and the bridge.

[Maria]

I live on Brighton Place and can confirm that traffic travels exceedingly fast. I've noticed in particular that the more "professional" the driver (I'm thinking here in particular of mini-cabs and the ubiquitous "white van" drivers), the faster they race. I include also in this category, the many buses that career up and down, frequently mounting the pavement as they do so, despite the droves of schoolchildren that use this route to school. I spoke to Lawrence Marshall about my concerns about 2 years back and he ruled out the possibility of any traffic calming measures. He suggested that the cobbles acted as a natural traffic calming measure. Perhaps this may be so, but only for cyclists who are forced onto the pavements instead.
My neighbours and I tried a bit of tactical parking to slow traffic (all totally legal of course) but found the police on our doorsteps complaining that it was interfering with the traffic flow.

[Epykat]

I would think the cobbles just make it even more dangerous especially when they're wet and slippy!! And just out of interest have you clocked the tube in the souped up white whatever it is who deliberately backfires his car when he goes under the bridge - every morning. If I was anywhere near awake I'd maybe see the reg number

[bellybabe]

Erm...sorry to be dense, but where do we find out which streets will be affected? Personally, although we live in the 20 zone, we really want bumps in our street because there are lots of children playing here, not to mention the kids going to school along our street every day, and people ignore the 20 limit anyway. In fact, one day i was crossing over with the two children when some idiot came tearing down the street at a ridiculous speed, almost hit us, and then had the nerve to swear at me and the children for being in the road. But I'm guessing since we've already had the improvements for the area in terms of the speed limit change and the bumps on Bath Street, we're probably not going to get any more.

[Cairns]

As a resident in Kekewich Avenue I am most concerned with regards to the rat-running we experience, not only at peak times but during the course of any day. As a mother of 4 young children this has made me increasingly angry. When I recently spoke to Edinburgh Council regarding this problem they said they were not aware of the problem and no plans were in place to look at the problem we have. One neighbour was actually informed by someone in the council that there would have to be a fatality before it was considered to be priority! Disgusting! There are numerous young children in our street under the age of 10. At least 20 at the last count - why is that not priority? Is it understandable we get frustrated when we see speed bumps and traffic calming plans put in place in dead end streets and quieter areas? I constantly try to flag cars and vans down to remind them of the speed limit but 9 times out of 10 they are going too fast to notice me. Imagine a small child running out in front of them. If I do manage to get the reg no or logo on the van I will now automatically pass it onto the police and I do not want one of my children to be one of the fatalities, or that of any of my neighbours, necessary to prompt the council into action.

[Epykat]

I totally sympathise with you and your neighbours in Kekewich. At the risk of being shouted down - I bet if you lived in what was considered to be a more deprived area you would have had your speed bumps and 20s Plenty signs up long ago! Likewise if you lived near a Primary School. For some obscure reason the Council seem to think that Secondary Schools aren 't a priority for traffic calming measures. I would think teenagers are more likely than toddlers to be involved in an accident due to the fact that they're allowed out unsupervised (horror of horrors!!!). The amount of near misses I see every day on the way to work is scary in the extreme, but like you, it will probably take a fatality before anything is done about it.

[Guest]

An article in the current issue of the Portobello Reporter (online version available soon) gives an update on the traffic calming proposals. A special meeting of the East Local Development Committee has been organised to discuss the proposals with local people. This will take place at 7pm on Tuesday 29 June 2004 at the Hays Community Business Centre, 4 Hay Avenue, Craigmillar.

If you want to find out more about the proposals and how they will affect you, or if you wish to challenge the wisdom of installing speed bumps in your particular street, then this is your opportunity. There will be plenty of other people there from Porty, including your local councillors, so come along and participate in local democracy.

[Guest]

This is a list of the streets within the proposed 20 mph zone, where traffic calming measures are likely to be introduced:

Bridge Street, Harbour Road, Bridge Street Lane, Brickfield, William Jameson Place, Harbour Place, Pipe Street, Pipe Lane, The Pottery, Rathbone Place, Law Place, Spa Place, Shrub Mount, Figgate Street, Figgate Lane, New Tower Place, Aitchisons Place, Whins Place, Mentone Avenue, Beach Lane, Figgate Bank, Maryfield, Ramsay Place, Wilsons Park, Bath Place, Bath Street, Straiton Place, Regent Street, Regent Street Lane, Bath Street Lane, Marlborough Street, Bellfield Terrace, Bellfield Lane, Bellfield Street, Pittville Street Lane, Pittville Street, Elcho Terrace, John Street Lane West, John Street, John Street Lane, Laing Terrace, John Street Lane East, James Street, James Street Lane, Promenade, Brunstane Road North, Bedford Terrace, Lower Joppa, Morton Street, Joppa Park.

[Lawrence Marshall]

Please do come along to the East Local Development Committee meeting on 29th June if you can - Council officials will be there to explain the current proposals and answer questions. I have a promise from Councillor Andrew Burns that it will be possible to amend the detailed street lists after consultation with LDCs across the city.
I've pasted in below the article I submitted to the summer 2004 edition of the "Portobello Reporter" on this matter.
I am quite convinced that all the evidence from the many schemes now operating across the country shows that 20 mph zones save lives. They first of all reduce the likelihood of an accident occurring in the first place and, secondly, increase survivability if an accident does happen.
I am not a great believer in "humps", etc. but that's what it currently takes to make sure that drivers do reduce their speed - they largely ignore "please" signs such as the "Twenty's Plenty" trial.
The trick is to put in measures where they are most required - I'm not sure codes of practice actually allow us to achieve this at the moment and I fear that we could end up spending money where we don't need to and neglect streets where there's more of a justification for physical measures on the ground.
For the future, I firmly hope that humps, etc. will be rendered redundant by a GPS system being mandatory in every vehicle which will map permitted speed with actual speed in the vehicle and simply not allow drivers to exceed the limit. This requires huge data prcessing power to implement - but the technology is getting there.

* * * * *

my copy for the summer edition of the "Portobello Reporter":

The Council has allocated some £2m in the next financial year (2005/6) to begin to implement Labour's manifesto promise to introduce 20 mph zones in "appropriate" residential areas.
There is no doubt, as a recent Council report pointed out, that such zones "are, in the right circumstances, a major opportunity for accident reduction" - zones which local authorities now have direct power to introduce. These have, however, to be self-enforcing, achieved by engineering measures - experimental advisory 20 mph speed limits (e.g. locally in Magdalene) were pretty much ignored by drivers.
Injury accident records over the past 5 years (with more weighting given to those suffered by particularly vulnerable road users) were used to determine those areas where 20 mph zones would be of most benefit - a conservative estimate is that traffic calming will at least half the current number of accidents.
The resulting priority list ranked Portobello north of the High Street and east of the Figgate Burn 9th out of 73.
When looking through the streets to be included in the Portobello area, however, it struck me that courtyards such as Rathbone Place and cul-de-sacs such as Bath Place were probably not the most "appropriate" locations in which to spend limited resources when streets such as Mount Lodge Place and Windsor Place, for instance, were not on the list yet were much more subject to through traffic posing a danger to young and old. Regent Street and Marlborough Street also struck me as odd choices at first - but our officials have made the argument that high levels of parking, while reducing traffic speed, also increase the risk of injury to those crossing between parked vehicles.
I had hoped that our officials might be able to reassure me that physical works were not required in each street listed - but they couldn't. Other councillors had similar concerns in their areas and thus, through the Council's scrutiny procedures, I have now managed to secure a consultation process with Local Development Committees and community councils on this matter. This will also allow concerns over design in the city's Conservation Areas to be addressed.
Hopefully, as a result of this, we will end up throughout the city with schemes positively supported by local people which will also achieve the best results in terms of accident reductions for the money spent.

Councillor Lawrence Marshall

[Mimpty]

Did anyone go to the meeting on Tuesday? I was unable to go.

I doubt this would make anyone slow down but, what about making Regent Street and Marlborough Street one way only?
You could drive down Regent street form the high street and drive up Marlborough from straiton place onto the high street.
These roads are too narrow for cars to pass each other, and it wouldn't lose any parking.

[Lawrence Marshall]

The question of making one-way the streets between Beach Lane and Bellfield Street, Portobello High Street and the Promenade is one which has been around for many years it's also one on which it's very difficult to get agreement.
Making streets one-way increases traffic speed along them - though if the 20 mph measures are effective this might might provide a solution to this particular difficulty.

Lawrence

[Surrealist]

I must say that compulsory GPS-linked speed inhibitors in cars is the kind of lunatic policy we've come to expect from Neo-Labour!

Not only are there safety implications, there are also privacy issues - what's to stop the government of the day amending legislation slightly and deciding that all cars should transmit their position as well as receive it?

I'm not sure I want to live in the Big Brother nightmare that Bob and Larry are intent on constructing for us.

[Mimpty]

Could we have the 20mph signs instead of speed humps then?
Less invasive, surely, and most people are fairly law abiding.

[Lawrence Marshall]

I'm afraid that the advisory speed limit trials throughout Scotland - including 3 in Edinburgh, the Magdalene area being one - showed that simply asking folk via signs to acknowledge that "Twenty's Plenty" made very little difference to the speed that they then continued to drive at. That's why the Scottish Executive then decided that compulsory limits enforced by physical measures on the ground was the only way to see actual speed reductions in residential areas.
I acknowledge that GPS has privacy implications - but these are no different to those involved in the use of mobile phones where most folk think the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages (with protocols in place on the latter in any case).
There may be cases where a GPS dictated speed might need to be exceeded in an emergency and I'm not sure how the technology would deal with this. Again, however, the question is one of whether such a system would increase safety overall.
In the end, if folk drove sensibly in the city, other folk wouldn't be clamouring in their thousands for traffic calming measures in their street. The UK's road accident record is a good one when compared with most other western countries - but we've a really bad record as regards child accidents. Hence the need to reduce traffic speeds in residential areas.

[Guest]

I think that two very good pieces of news came out of the LDC meeting. The first is the fact that the Portobello area is going to be among the first to benefit from the new 20 mph zones, and this will undoubtedly make those streets safer for everyone.

The second is that commonsense has prevailed. Initially it seemed that every lane and cul de sac north of the High Street was going to have speed bumps installed. Clearly this was overkill, inappropriate and a huge waste of money. Clarification was sought on the issue and the necessary dispensation given to omit certain types of street, where speed bumps would serve no purpose. Even better, the savings made have allowed many more schemes further down the priority list to now go ahead. I would like to add that Lawrence Marshall deserves at least some of the credit for this.

[Ed]

We received a leaflet through the door the last few days, apparently all of the Northfield area is getting speed bumped soon. Good news for the people who use my street as a rat run at night!

[Mimpty]

Marlborough Street was marked up ready to receive the bumps recently. I don't think we need them.

[Beach Babe]

have to lol @ Marlborough Street getting speed bumps - ridiculous

we got a leaflet too and our whole area is to get them too. Fair enough I guess as some cars do drive a bit fast on our street and there are lots of school kids about

[Robin!]

Speed bumps are a nuisance IMO.

But people driving at silly speeds in built up areas are to blame, I only wish there was other ways of keeping their speed down without bloody speed bumps, chicanes are quite effective but then you lose spaces.

[Epykat]

We haven't had a leaflet......does this mean the High Street's not getting any then?

[Robin!]

We haven't had a leaflet......does this mean the High Street's not getting any then?

I thought they didnt put speed bumps down on main bus routes?

[wangi]

I think E was having a play... But think about the mess they've made of McDonald Rd with speed bumps and chicanes - It's a bus route plus the fire engines have to contend with this!

[andydckent]

I realise there is another topic on the forum about this so clearly there is interest in the matter.

The council is spending £6 million on useless pathetic stupid bumps.... At a cost of £1000 per bump! And they are puting those stupid bumps at the end of streets. Its really time that people started a campaign against them, its our money and I can think of much more effective uses for it..... like filling in all the holes that are already in our roads.

One of the streets listed for bumps is Marlborough Street in Portobello which is already almost impassable because of parked cars on either side!

Speed bumps are ineffective, they damage suspension and shock absorbers on ALL cars! Idiots who speed in a 20mph limit ignore then anyway. They also cause noise for locals when cars cross them.

I want to point out that I am not against sensible 20mph zones near schools and in heavily built up areas.

On a further note imagine the disruption that will be caused when the bumps are to be installed and cars having to be moved etc!!

They must be stopped..... don't forget it is Edinburghs Labour council that is implimenting this and that wanted the congestion charge with the support of a local member Maureen Child who I have to say is useless (in my opinion) and does not represent the views of the area.

I would like to hear other peoples views on the subject and if possible put forward a potition against these speed bumps.

Andy

[Bob Jefferson]

In fact you will find that Maureen Child agrees that there are some streets that are not appropriate for the installation of speed bumps. The following is an extract from her recent report to the Community Council:

20mph Speed LimitsThe discussion is still going on about 20 mph limits and the need for road humps in cul de sacs in Joppa. While common sense dictates one thing, the legal framework for 20mph limit areas dictates another. I can only conclude that the law is off-beam in respect of statutory limits. No bumps, means no legally enforceable reduction in the speed limit in residential areas. Meanwhile, the Magdalene estate is being consulted on the 20mph scheme for their area. This was one of the experimental areas in Scotland that helped demonstrate that putting up 'Twenty's Plenty' signs made not a blind bit of difference to the way most people drive their vehicles through residential streets, where most pedestrian accidents occur.

The type of speed bump to be installed in the Portobello area will not cause damage to standard production vehicles. Of course, if you choose to modify your car and in doing so reduce its ground clearance then you may have a problem. Equally, anyone foolish enough to drive at excessive speed over a speed bump may damage their vehicle. I certainly hope so at least.

I'm pleased that you agree that 20mph zones are a good idea in heavily built up areas. Portobello is a heavily built up area.

Road engineering solutions are often required when motorists do not heed speed limit signs. The areas to be traffic calmed have been prioritised because of their relatively high rate of road casualties. I would expect that most local people, particularly those with young children, welcome these measures.

[andydckent]

These bumps can and will damage cars regardless of speed or whether or not they have been lowered to improve road handeling and safty.

Obviously more damage will be done when a car is driven fast over any bump. Whats the point in 20mph advisory signs that cannot be enforced? Why not just make the limit 20mph on these roads?

People who speed will ignore speed bumps, I have seen it myself people (usually middle age men and woman) flying over bumps as if they weren't there. As for proper people who conform to the description of boy-racer, they don't care about damaging their cars so the bumps have no effect, and chicanes are more like a slalom for them. Genuine enthusiasts will always look after there cars by not doing stupid things, they have poored £1000s into their cars and would not want them to become damaged.

Before someone else tars me with the boy racer brush I will admit to having a lowered car which can easily get accross legal speed bumps (although extreemly slowly causing traffic to que up behind me to avoid damaging my shock absorbers). The problem is speed bumps put in place by the council are illegelly high and in some cases will scrap bumpers of standard cars.

These measures are a waste of money.

How many fatalities have we had on the porobello roads in question eg Morton street?......... None.

Andy

One more thing... how come Edinburgh Council is one of the only Councils still installing speed bumps when hunders of others accross the UK are now removing them?

[Bob Jefferson]

These bumps can and will damage cars regardless of speed or whether or not they have been lowered to improve road handeling and safty.

Can you give us an example of any standard production vehicle that has been damaged by the speed bumps in Bath Street?

Before someone else tars me with the boy racer brush

I didn't

I will admit to having a lowered car which can easily get accross legal speed bumps (although extreemly slowly causing traffic to que up behind me to avoid damaging my shock absorbers).

That's OK, we don't mind waiting.

The problem is speed bumps put in place by the council are illegelly high

Are you sure about this?

How many fatalities have we had on the porobello roads in question eg Morton street?......... None.

How many fatalaties do you think we should have before introducing speed reduction measures? What would be a fair number?

You seem to have two arguments that contradict each other. On the one hand

I will admit to having a lowered car which can easily get accross legal speed bumps

which suggests that the bumps are not high enough, while on the other

These bumps can and will damage cars regardless of speed...

which suggests that they are too high. You can't have it both ways.

[andydckent]

(i) Example of standard car damaged by speed bumps (or any of the rest of the bumps on our roads which the money should be used to repair)..... my dads ford fiesta, not a wreck of a car and not perticuarly old. One of the front springs had sheerd near the bottom!:shock: Also required 2 new shocks in a year.

(ii) Not saying you were saying I was a boy racer but I am sure some smart alec would argue otherwise.

(iii) 20mph is a reasonable speed for any side street and you will probably find that most people don't exceed it anyway.... To cross these bumps without causing damage to cars you have to go about 5mph.

(iv) Many of edinburghs speed bumps are illegally high (I think they are not supposed to exceed 40mm in hight not sure exactly), some residence on Brunstane road have already complained about this and the fact that there are bumps too close to the bridge which are also technically illegal.

(v) What is the point in solving a problem that doesn't exist? If we had a high rate or indeed any rate of car - predestian accidents then I would understand.

(vi) My car is lowered yes but not by much (40mm) that brings it to the same height as some other standard cars. The problem very often with lowered cars is not the height but the stiffness of the suspension.

I am not arguing just for my own benifit as I warn you that it is fact any bump will damage a car and you will be paying in shock absorbers or time.


My main point is this, could the money be spent somewhere better? Answer.... yes! Edinburghs roads are amoungst the worst maintained in Europe and filled with pot holes! Infact it is reconed that the Council is 10 years behind in road maintainance! That is where the money should go and not on excessive traffic calming.

Andy

[wangi]

Andy, the time for this has passed - there was a consultation process, every house got a leaflet including details on how to put forward your views.

Only a handfull of people did (I got an email last week from the council re my "representation" on the matter). The council (quite rightly) are going ahead with this because they see 3 or 4 negative responses out of the population of Portobello is a resounding backing of the scheme.

I don't like it, I think it's pointless, but it's too late now...