Speed bumps

[andydckent]

Well at least someone else sees sense! I guess it probably is too late if no one bothers to kick up a fuss. I know I am right though, again, as I usually am. Oh well.

Andy

[Dadaist]

I know I am right though, again, as I usually am.

!!!

"Your over-confidence is your weakness"

[andydckent]

I know I am right though, again, as I usually am.

!!!

"Your over-confidence is your weakness"

Well, on some things I am sure I am right, this is one of them.

Although I wouldn't like people to think I am big headed, anyone that knows me can tell you I am not.

[DG]

Andydckent, are you a real pirate with that signature?

I have just caught up with this thread. Wangi, I was unaware of there being anything sent round the houses about future plans for more speed bumps and, as most of my home is on Marlborough Street, received nothing in the mail about this. Andy, I agree that putting speed bumps on roads like Marlborough Street is a total waste of money. Traffic on this street already grinds to a hault on a regular basis due to the one way system with the parking on both sides of the road. I don't see how it can get much slower. I also agree that all side streets should have a 20mph limit and anything above this is unnecessary and dangerous.

One of my concerns regarding the implementation of speed bumps is around the difficulty the emergency services have experienced when trying to respond to calls quickly. Speed bumps like other speed reducing measures slow these vehicles down more. I don't know what the answer is here, or if there is one. I'd be interested to hear what other countries or UK cities have implemented. Is it naive to think that an option could be speed cameras on these streets? I'm sure this could be a cheaper option but could be wrong.

DG

[andydckent]

Some one else who agrees!

I have not recieved any form of consultation for the council as well.

Speed Cameras are hidously expensive (or there would be more).... but then so is £6 million for speed bumps so dunno really what would be cheaper?

Also the new speed bumps that have been placed recently are very difficult to see in the dark perticuarly when its wet and I imagine this has led to minor car accidents when people slam on the breaks as they get to them (not saying they were going fast, but I wont go over a bumpo at more than 5mph and have found myself in this situation on wet nights).

Andy

p.s on the note of other citys you will find that most UK citys have stopped putting in new bumps and many are removing some of them.

[wangi]

The info is online too: http://www.edinburgh20zones.co.uk/

And the reply I received:

Dear Ms Kindness

Please see the attached letter regarding the outcome of the consultation undertaken for the proposed Portobello 20mph zone.

Regards

Andrew Brown
Transportation Engineer
Strategic Services
City Development
Tel: 0131 469 3699
Fax: 0131 469 3618
E-mail: andrew.brown@edinburgh.gov.uk

Dear Ms Kindness

20MPH ZONES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS - PORTOBELLO

I refer to the above and to recent consultation undertaken with residents concerning the 20mph zone proposals for Portobello.

The 20mph zones programme for residential areas is a road safety initiative which has been endorsed and approved by the Council. This approval took account of the road safety policy objective, the protocol for selecting the priority residential 20mph zones and also the specific schemes.

The consultation process involved delivery of leaflets to 1994 households, a public display at Portobello Library, as well as a dedicated web site (www.edinburgh20zones.co.uk). The purpose of the consultation was to provide residents with information about the proposals, as well as to provide an opportunity for feedback with respect to possible modifications.

Feedback from the consultation generated a total of 11 responses as follows: 3 in agreement, 4 representations and 4 objections. This level of objection represents less than a ¼% of residents consulted and construction of the road safety measures will therefore proceed as indicated in the consultation leaflet with the exception of some very minor modifications. I can advise that work is scheduled to start on 02 May 2005.

I would like to thank you for your participation in the consultation process, which has been greatly valued. We will seek to continue to work together with residents on this and other initiatives and programmes in the future.

Yours faithfully

Duncan Fraser
Strategic Services Manager

[Epykat]

If you want my thoughts on the matter (or even if you don't!) I really don't care whose car gets damaged by speed bumps. Rather that than them being damaged by a human being landing on their bonnet. I would have Portobello speed bumped from end to end and width wise as well, especially Brighton Place, Straiton Place and the whole of the High Street.

[andydckent]

If you want my thoughts on the matter (or even if you don't!) I really don't care whose car gets damaged by speed bumps. Rather that than them being damaged by a human being landing on their bonnet. I would have Portobello speed bumped from end to end and width wise as well, especially Brighton Place, Straiton Place and the whole of the High Street.

But the point is that we haven't had any (or certainly not that I am aware of) people killed by being struck by cars in Portobello. It seems sensless to solve a problem that doesn't exist when the money could be better spent else where perhaps on improving to roads or public transport.

[wangi]

The problem with most of the streets in Portobello, that are getting the traffic calming measures, isn't really that of speed - it is visibility. Currently cars are parked on both sides of the street (often half on the pavement) leading to a canyon effect - it is hard for people wanting to cross the street to get a decent view up and down the street. Plus there is not enough space left on the pavements for babies in prams / push chairs or disabled people in wheel chairs.

Restricting parking to a single side of the road would seem an ideal solution, but that's hardly going to be popular. However people are voicing safety concerns in this thread - lets be honest and acknowledge what the root problem is that makes you perceive the streets as currently dangerous.

[ NB: Merged this topic and the earlier speed bumps one ]

[bellybabe]

Dear Ms Kindness

BTW, Ms Kindness, will you be remaining Ms when you get married, or changing it to Mrs?

[Pal of Porty]

I spend more of my time as a pedestrian rather than a driver but I have to admit to detesting speed bumps - I think they cause as many problems as they cure.

I also remember reading an article not too long ago where an entire fleet of brand new ambulances had to be mothballed because they were unable to negotiate the speed bumps that the particular Council concerned had installed everywhere.

[wangi]

BB, quite enjoying being a Ms!

This is an interesting site re speed bumps: http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm

Andy, maximum allowable height of a speedbump is 100mm (~4"), but recent recommendation from the DfT: "To limit the possibility of grounding, investigations suggest that road humps generally should not exceed 75mm in height.". The bumps going in will be 75mm high.

[andydckent]

BB, quite enjoying being a Ms!

This is an interesting site re speed bumps: http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm

Andy, maximum allowable height of a speedbump is 100mm (~4"), but recent recommendation from the DfT: "To limit the possibility of grounding, investigations suggest that road humps generally should not exceed 75mm in height.". The bumps going in will be 75mm high.

Thanks for clarifying the maximum height! I can think of quite a few that exceed that, for example in Craigmillar before you get on to the back road up to the castle.

Also thats a fantastic website! Case closed I think!

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

Speed and accidents

Contrary to Jenny Hjul’s assertion (Opinion, 28 April) that Edinburgh’s Portobello area does not have an accident problem, in the five-year period over which 200 residential areas in the city were assessed, there were 11 personal injury accidents there.

Research has shown that 20mph zones with traffic-calming reduce accidents by over 50 per cent and, critically, can mean the difference between death and minor injury for child casualties.

The cul-de-sacs referred to are up to 200 metres long and you would not need to be David Coultard to get over 20mph over such a distance. Accidents can happen in cul-de-sacs, and indeed on the 11 accidents referred to, three have occurred in the cul-de-sacs.

The initiative was reported to, and debated at, all of the council’s local development committees (at which all community councils were represented).

My engineers were approached by nine residents in Portobello recently, eight of whom made comments along the lines of "can’t come quick enough" or "should have happened years ago".

Traffic-calming saves lives.

ANDREW M HOLMES
Director of city development
City of Edinburgh Council
High Street
Edinburgh

[Bob Jefferson]

Just to pick up on a point from Andrew Holmes' letter, the whole issue was discussed at great length at an ELDC meeting last year. Members of the public, including myself, were able to raise a number of points and it was a very instructive and constructive evening.

These meetings are open to all members of the public, as are Community Council meetings. The next ELDC meeting is on 10 May. More details in the 'What's On' section.

[Pal of Porty]

From today's EN:

Speed and accidents

Contrary to Jenny Hjul’s assertion (Opinion, 28 April) that Edinburgh’s Portobello area does not have an accident problem, in the five-year period over which 200 residential areas in the city were assessed, there were 11 personal injury accidents there.

I consider that to be 11 too many but what is a 'personal injury accident'? I have found in that past that my initial shock at reading figures turns out to be unwarranted as definitions can often be so broad. For example, does it range from a cut finger to losing a limb?

[CatzVP]

does it range from a cut finger to losing a limb?

Good Point!

[andydckent]

11 in the whole of Edinburgh's residential areas..... and these were not people being killed or it would be 11 fatalities! 11 is a tiny figure... compair that too the estimated 500 lives lost in London a year because ambulances were slowed as a result of traffic calming. Or the number of lives lost with the 10 second delay to fire trucks on every hump.

I actually doubt all these bumps would reduce that figure anyway.

[MrSpoon]

BOY RACER!


If you're driving within the legal/recommended speed limit for the area (ie 20, for which I think Portobello is becoming enforced, not just recommended) then there isn't a problem - perhaps a slight slow down for the actualy bump which will add all of a few seconds onto your journey time.

Get a grip - you have no rights to drive fast.

[Bob Jefferson]

11 in the whole of Edinburgh's residential areas..... and these were not people being killed or it would be 11 fatalities! 11 is a tiny figure... compair that too the estimated 500 lives lost in London a year because ambulances were slowed as a result of traffic calming. Or the number of lives lost with the 10 second delay to fire trucks on every hump.

I actually doubt all these bumps would reduce that figure anyway.

Andy, I think you will find that the 11 personal injury accidents all occurred in the Portobello area to be traffic-calmed. I assume that a personal injury accident is one that involved a trip to hospital but I can confirm this within a few days.

Many of the concerns you have raised are dealt with here. More detailed information regarding the methodology used to prioritise areas to be traffic-calmed is also available to download from this website.

As for the Association of British Drivers, I think their facts and figures may be ever so slightly unreliable.

[wangi]

Many of the concerns you have raised are dealt with here. More detailed information regarding the methodology used to prioritise areas to be traffic-calmed is also available to download from this website.

As for the Association of British Drivers, I think their facts and figures may be ever so slightly unreliable.

It'd be fairer to say that they are biased, but then again the same can probably be said of the council "FAQ" answers. At least the ABD give references and links to where they have sourced the data.

[Pal of Porty]

I'm afraid for many years now the whole issue seems to come from the mind set 'To Speed Bump' or 'Not To Speed Bump'. The time spent in continuous justification of each party's position inhibits genuine attempts to get the problem solved in an acceptable manner to all.

[andydckent]

BOY RACER!


If you're driving within the legal/recommended speed limit for the area (ie 20, for which I think Portobello is becoming enforced, not just recommended) then there isn't a problem - perhaps a slight slow down for the actualy bump which will add all of a few seconds onto your journey time.

Get a grip - you have no rights to drive fast.

Thankyou for your wisdom!

When did I say I had a right to speed?

[andydckent]

Many of the concerns you have raised are dealt with here. More detailed information regarding the methodology used to prioritise areas to be traffic-calmed is also available to download from this website.

As for the Association of British Drivers, I think their facts and figures may be ever so slightly unreliable.

It'd be fairer to say that they are biased, but then again the same can probably be said of the council "FAQ" answers. At least the ABD give references and links to where they have sourced the data.

Good point, Its pretty obvious that in each case the arguments are going to be bias. ABD give detailed reference which is good!

So if read together.... for and against... both bias.... what can we conclude?

[CatzVP]

Ah... how people will laugh in twenty years, reminiscing about this speed bump debate, driving a long in their hover cars

[Epykat]

I've been happily watching the effect of the speed bumps in Duddingston Road this week on my way to and from work. What a difference! It's obvious that those drivers who were happy to drive at 30+ past all those kids are now terrified to damage their precious cars (although it's not stopping those who still stop on the zig zags therefore stopping the other traffic from getting past but you can't win them all). We just need from the bridge to the high street done now because that's the speed fiends' favourite bit

[ecm]

Yeah, it's scary the speeds some drivers go at down Brighton Place.

[Epykat]

Twice this year cars have gone into the barriers under the bridge (the bit on the left on the way up still hasn't been fixed) and very recently I noticed a gas van which had presumably skidded on the cobbles or swerved and gone into the wall just at the entrance to the bridge. Luckily none of this was in the school rush hour.

[ecm]

I sometimes get the 42 down Brighton Place with Dan around the time the kids from the High School are walking down too.

The kids walk 3 or 4 abreast, as they do, and it can get quite scary as the bus often seems to go far too fast and literally just inches away from the kids walking on the outside.

I just imagine one of them stumbling or being pushed as they muck about and coming to grief.

[Robin!]

I loathe speed bumps, I agree with them round schools i.e. Portobello High, Duddingston Primary, Brunstane Primary. But the council are going OTT with them

[Maria]

I sometimes get the 42 down Brighton Place with Dan around the time the kids from the High School are walking down too.

The kids walk 3 or 4 abreast, as they do, and it can get quite scary as the bus often seems to go far too fast and literally just inches away from the kids walking on the outside.

I just imagine one of them stumbling or being pushed as they muck about and coming to grief.

The buses frequently mount the pavement ecm. I'm hoping that the new pavement improvements scheduled for Nov will have nice high, sharp edged kerbs that will deter drivers from this practice.

We just need from the bridge to the high street done now because that's the speed fiends' favourite bit

Can't see that happening Epykat. There need to be a few tragic accidents before that stretch becomes 'officially' dangerous. A couple of years back my neighbour and I tried a bit of strategic parking, using both sides of the street to park as opposed to just using the Brighton Park side as is customary. We had the Police on the doorstep complaining that we were interfering with the traffic flow (which was, of course, our intention!).

The setts, while very picturesque, are an added hazard and cannot cope with the fact that it is a busy road used by heavy vehicles such as the frequent double decker buses. They may have been relaid fairly recently but quickly reverted to their previous uneven, badly cambered and cracked condition.

And don't get me started on the broken drains and the HUGE puddles which form whenever it rains...

[foxy]

What are "setts" Marya?

(And BTW how do you do that double quoting thing you just did )

[wangi]

sett, aka cobbles...

What they need to do is to do it properly as done last year on the Royal Mile - lift them all, lay concrete founds and then relay the setts on top.

[Maria]

(And BTW how do you do that double quoting thing you just did )

1. I copied and pasted from Epykat's post
2. Clicked on the quote button twice
3. I cut and pasted

to the start of the section I wished to put in quotes
4. I inserted ="Epykat" after 'e' and before the final square bracket ]
i.e.

5. Make sure you close the quote with the /quote code in square brackets.

(Of course rather than clicking the quote button and cutting and pasting you could just type the commands yourself....)

[Maria]

sett, aka cobbles...

What they need to do is to do it properly as done last year on the Royal Mile - lift them all, lay concrete founds and then relay the setts on top.

My BiL, who is in the construction industry, says that you also need to use a flexible material between the setts