East Dulwich proposed speed bumps - any views?

[johnrich]

i'm on one of the roads where there are the proposed traffic calming measures, and I was wondering what the locals though of the impact of in particular the speed bumps. There's one proposed outside our house. I'm all for the safety aspect and given the speed with which some drivers hit our roads its a good thing but i'm worried about the noise. Years ago i lived where the bumps were and every lorry made a rather loud noise as it crossed over. So i'm asking for real world opinions, anyone have experience of this or know if the bumps have changed design and have less impact?

thanks all

[Wino]

If they are the 'island' cushion types then in my experience they make a road look ugly and they do not slow down traffic as most vehicles can run over them without any interference. Because of that I suppose it does mean that you don't get the noise issues that you encountered before.

[lesalden]

I think you have to fight for the new 'sinusoidal' bumps such as they have put in Camberwell Grove.

The trouble with normal humps and cushions is that many vehicles will slow to 10mph and then slow/fast all along the road increasing noise and pollution as they pass each obstacle.

The new ones (probably more expensive) are desgned to be comfortable at 20mph but not higher.

Better still would be no bumps at all. I agree with 20mph but much more imaginative schemes with shrub planting etc. can be seen in some areas. ED deserves some thought to the niceness of the street scene don't you think?

[Drxyster]

As your insurance company will tell you, East Dulwich is an area prone to subsidence. A speed bump adjacent to your property, may possibly cause subsidence problems to your property, due to the vibrations caused by vehicles hitting the humps. I do not know this to be a fact, but having had some experience with insurance and a subsidence claim, I would certainly check with your insurance company.

Any piece of information that is not disclosed to your insurance company may affect the validity of your claim. If speed bumps are installed I would certainly inform my insurer, who may well increase the annual premium to cover the possible increase in risk.

[James Barber]

Southwark Council now only puts sinusiodal speed humps in.

I'm not aware of insurance claims against the council due to speed humps.

[lesalden]

I believe the legislation says that the council would not be responsible anyway if the bump is more than 1 metre from the property. So there would be no claims on the council.

Do any of the readers of this forum have evidence of property damage caused by traffic calming?

It would be interesting to know of any cases.

[PeckhamRose]

Some of the people living on Cheltenham Road (the road that continues south after it has finished being Peckham Rye SE15) claimed that their property was being damaged by the large trucks that go down there. It's now 20mph but the 343 never keeps to that speed. It would be interesting to hear if people on that road have any opinions, because road humps would surely make it worse. The road dips down in the middle anyway. As for 20mph being comfortable over the new humps, try doing that on a bike when you have a bad back, or a broken limb in an ambulance?

[sue k]

I am not convinced they slow traffic down either, as virtually all cars/vans can 'straddle' straight over. I have an old style mini and so can't do this, and have to slow down to zero (not that I am ever going fast anyway!) to carefully avoid damaging my exhaust and general suspension. When I do this, most other cars behind just overtake, thus speeding up! I am all for slowing cars down, but am not convinced about this method. There are some areas which are trialing no road markings whatsoever as this apparently makes drivers more aware of their speed and position in the road etc....(I think it is proving quite successful)it would save a lot of money too, by not having more signs/bumps etc which just clutter the streetscape!

The main road I do feel strongly about needing speed restrictions/ways to prevent high speed is Dog Kennel Hill. With a recent fatality and several other serious crashes down there, this would seem to me to be needing higher attention and I stated this on the feedback form from Southwark Council. I live just off the hill by the station, and regularly hear screeching of brakes late at night as they speed down the hill and then realise there is a sharp bend just after the bridge....this surely has to be an important concern?

[James Barber]

Hi Sue K,

The type of phyiscal obstacle you refer to are 'speed cushions'.

The proposals for East Dulwich roads included in the 'North Dulwich 20mph zone' are Melbourne, Derwent and Elsie and proposals are for 'sinusiodal humps' that go across the whole road width.

[melbourne groover]

Which end of Melbourne are they proposing? And in what positions?

We haven't received any info on this.

[James Barber]

Melbourne Grove between Grove Vale and East Dulwich Grove.

[melbourne groover]

Thanks very much for the quick reply!

[northernmonkey]

As a resident of one of the roads mentioned, we have not received any information / notification on this. I am opposed to speed bumps as an initial measure to slow traffic. Surely a more reasonable option would be to make the streets a 20mph zone, and only if this wasn't sucessful, to then slow traffic using speed bumps. As pointed out earlier in this thread, bumps cause traffic to slow and then speed up - increasing road noise and pollution during acceleration. Additionally the noise of traffic going over the bumps is considerable. Going for speed bumps before trying to slow traffic through speed limits does not seem sensible, both for the reasons outlined and on a more basic cost level.

[James Barber]

Hi northernmoney,

If you haven't received the consultation yet then either you're not on the electoral roll or it has yet arrived and is imminent.

You will have opportunity to give clear feedback. Once this zone is finalised it wont be reviewed for several years.

[panda boy]

Big fat no to more speed bumps, especially the 'cushion' type.

They encourage people to drive down the middle of the road resulting in an increase in dangerous driving, (i.e. people speeding up to make a gap in the parked cars,) and an increase in hit and run damage to parked cars.

Have seen and been subject to this several times.

Total bloody pointless waste of time...

[lesalden]

The council are now consulting residents in Thompson Heber Rodwell area about more speed bumps. They have given residents speed data which usually doesn't justify any measures!

East Dulwich deserves an improvement in its environment. Not more disfiguring speed bumps. There must be a vested interest here somewhere!

Also the London Ambulance Service is coordinating a campaign across London because of the discomfort and delays they cause. There is a meeting at Waterloo tonight.

People support 20mph but not speed bumps. When will politicians realise this?

[candj]

lesalden Wrote:

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

> The council are now consulting residents in

> Thompson Heber Rodwell area about more speed

> bumps. They have given residents speed data which

> usually doesn't justify any measures!

They have? When? This area could definitely use them.

Agree with Panda Boy that the cushion speed bumps encourage people to drive quickly down the centre of the road but at least they are better than some of the speeds I've seen people driving around ED roads without them.

[Loz]

Looking at the data James Barber provided on the other thread, I'd really question whether installing the speed humps is either cost effective or a good idea. The average speed and 85th percentiles were mostly under or close to the limit. What is the cost of these humps and is it worth bringing the average speed and 85th percentiles down probably 1 mph or thereabouts? There are people who speed and these measures won't change their habits. Only a cop with a speed gun can do that.

Sometimes you get the felling that councils do this stuff to look like they are doing something useful, when really there is either a) no problem or b) this isn't the solution. And we are paying for it.

[James Barber]

Speed humps cost ?1,400 on average and cover the whole road width. The variability being road width.No proposals for speed cushions that have gaps allowing larger vehciels to straddle the cushions and ignore them.

I've provided mean average speed, 85th percentile and mean averaged vehicle volumes per day on this forum.

The speeds of the non 85th percentile can be very high. I don't have that data for the recent speed counts but has included 99mph (only measures upto that) along Barry Road for past counts.

Reference London ambulance 'campaign'. I don't believe any measures are implimented in Southwark without the agreement of the emergency services. Irony is reducing speeds reduces the number of emergency call outs for the emergency services.

Final point. No one every admits to speeding. But from the data we know that every day around 250 vehicles speed down Matham Grove. Why should those residents have to suffer this anti social behaviour?

Roughly 2 x sinusoidal speed humps would solve this Matham Grove speeding for cost of ?2,800. This would seem a reasonable price to stop ninety thousand speeding incidents a year. Seems like cheap policing to me. But importantly the residents of Matham Grove would choose whether they want this or not.

[kford]

If we must suffer them, those tabletop designs are more preferable, like the one which forms a crossing on Peckham Rye. The back roads of Clapham have a few, and they seem to do the job just as well as cushions or full width humps, without the damage to cars, cyclists or spinal vertebrae.

[Loz]

Roughly 2 x sinusoidal speed humps would solve this Matham Grove speeding for cost of ?2,800. This would seem a reasonable price to stop ninety thousand speeding incidents a year.

It would be, if it did. Are you really saying that 90000 speeders will drop magically to zero?

I'm guessing that the really dangerous ones won't slow down by much, but the ones a couple of MPH over will. So, the stats will look good (average speeds will drop, total number of drivers 'speeding' drops), but the road is actually no less dangerous. Actually, possibly more dangerous if the figures of extra car exhaust pollution at speed humps is to be included.

[James Barber]

Hi kford, Loz,

Sinusoidal humps are rounded so much less aggressive than the older type which are angular and even painful for people driving at or below 20mph. So I believe the vertebrae wont suffer with the sinusoidal humps we now install. As they cross the whole road width if drivers are determined to speed despite the humps they'll quickly wreck their vehicles. Their choice.

Humps are not magic, but they are near impossible to ignore.

The alternative is to ignore the problem, the associated dangers non residents of a street are causing, and the residents call for action on this road and others.

For a contrast between sinusoidal and traditional humps travel down Camberwell Grove. Starts with a sinusoidal, them 2 or 3 traditoonal humps and then a sinusoidal before the lights at McNeil Street.

[kford]

The road will still be dangerous. Humps do not stop people using their phones, pulling out without looking or driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. Depends how you measure road safety.

Edited as meant to be a reply to Loz's post.

[chrism]

Myself and other residents requested speed bumps in our road. As I drive an ancient, low wheel-based vehicle I'm no fan of bumps per se, but they definitely do make a difference to the amount of people that speed down our road. There are a few drivers that still cane it, but overall it feels a safer road.

As a cyclist I also feel far safer riding on traffic-calmed roads - though a design featuring a kerb-side gap that cyclists could pass through would be appreciated!

[James Barber]

Hi kford,

I'm afraid I agree and disagree with you. You're right to highlight other causes of collisions including being distracted mobile phones, drink, etc. But the consequences of a collission at 20mph vs. 30mph are chalk and cheese. 20mph the victim almost always survives, 30mph they nearly always die.

Hi chrism,

Glad your road feels much safer.

As a cyclists have you tried cycling over the sinusoidal humps - think that gap you've requested might not be required.