Attn
Simon Hinton
Projects Engineer
Tamworth Highway Office
Development Services Directorate
Marmion House
Lichfield Street
Tamworth
Staffs. B79 7BZ
7th December 2004
Your ref: ltao/sh/rwp/cdk4669
STONYDELPH ACTION OBJECTION TO
FOSSDALE ROAD - PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING SCHEME
Dear Mr Hinton
Stonydelph Action Residents’ Association has now received your consultation letter regarding the above. Last night the matter was discussed and it was decided overwhelmingly by a packed meeting to object to any humps (or raised Zebra crossings) at all in Fossdale Road.
In fact Stonydelph Action (SA) discussed the matter of road humps on Stonydelph roads in April 2003 and decided then to oppose road humps for any roads in Stonydelph. It is a pity that you could not have consulted with us sooner as I’m sure we could have been helpful in determining a more suitable scheme which did not include road humps. As it is you have proposed a scheme that is nothing but road humps! But - as you say - you were not aware SA still existed until I contacted you about this matter.
SA is a Residents Association that covers 3,500 Stonydelph homes, which includes all Fossdale residents and probably the vast majority of those whose children attend the two schools involved. All residents are regularly informed by a bi-monthly newsletter of our meetings and various news and events around Stonydelph. The last newsletter included mention of your Fossdale Humps Scheme (see appended reference 1 [AR1]). Last night quite a number of Fossdale residents themselves came to the SA meeting to ask SA to object to this scheme. I have to say the meeting was unanimous on this - except one whom you may decide to claim as giving your scheme support - as he felt the humps may help fill in all the pot-holes and dips in the road!
The remit for the objection letter was to include:
|
1.
|
All the details why SA originally believed Humps to be entirely inappropriate installations in Fossdale or other Stonydelph Roads.
|
|
1.
|
To give new details as to why the humps in Fossdale are particularly inappropriate.
|
|
1.
|
To suggest better alternatives which our money could be spent on
|
|
1.
|
And to ask that in future Stonydelph Action be involved much earlier to avoid the necessity of objections like this.
|
I will be appending a number of references to this objection.
Fossdale Residents have delivered a leaflet around their estate detailing their objections to Road Humps. (Appended reference 2 [AR2]). This objection also relies on the details given in that leaflet.
To levels of pollution given in AR2 we would add the Research from the Government’s own Transport Research Laboratory that shows humps can
a increase carbon monoxide emissions by 70-80%
b Increase hydrocarbons by up to 100%
c increase Carbon dioxide by 50-60%
This is directly opposed to your stated aim to reduce pollution. As Fossdale Road cannot be used as a shortcut there can be no loss of traffic from that point of view. You may like to believe that the humps will force people out of their cars - that is a view that is unsupported by any evidence - it is a view that does not accord with the increase in the amount of parents taking children to school by car. Even if all parents living close to the schools, in Fossdale Road, (humps would not deter those outside Fossdale bringing their children in) did not take their children to school by car - but carried on their other car journeys as normal, it is unlikely that there would be barely any difference in traffic volume.
However traffic speeds would decrease and - unless traffics volumes can be brought down - therefore congestion must increase - which in itself will aggravate problems. This is directly against your stated aim to reduce congestion.
Shock absorbers, steering ball joints and suspensions sustain long term damage. This is evidenced by the large increase in repairs of such items. Unfortunately the damage is not always apparent and can make braking in an emergency a dangerous situation.
Heavy and Public Service vehicles suffer particular damage. In the Fossdale scheme you have 3 full length road humps/raised crossings which these vehicles, even with their wide axle, cannot avoid. You then have a large number of “cushion” humps around the rest of Fossdale for no reason that can be seen to do with the “safer” route to school that you are proposing. Depending on parking and other conditions these too may need to be “humped” by the heavier vehicles.
Items carried inside vehicles can be damaged by the shock of travelling over any hump.
Vehicles first braking and then accelerating away from road humps will disturb nearby residents particularly in the early hours. Milk Floats give a particular clatter each time they go over these humps - no matter how slowly they try to go.
The evidence for subterranean shock waves travelling up to 30 yards from road humps has caused Government to legislate against having these things too close to structures such as bridges, underpasses and tunnels. Damage may also be caused to underground piping. By the same criteria no resident should have any humps within 30 yards of their homes. The risk of structural damage - if proved against the County - could prove very costly. It would certainly prove costly to the home owner. This, along with other factors about humps can blight an area and lead to devaluation of property values.
It is a natural and accepted human limitation that the more the mind has to deal with at any one moment the more likely it is to make error. Humps provide that distraction by external signage / visual approach brain input signals on approaching the hump. Also internally with gear-stick and other control adjustments.
There are a number of risks associated with Road Humps.
1. Distraction as mentioned above.
2. On buses unseated travellers may be caught unawares and get injured.
3. Balance problems for both cyclists and motorcyclists. If they fall under oncoming or passing traffic then it becomes obvious that it is not speed but momentum (which includes weight) that will surely kill.
4. Drivers who are forced in their jobs to traverse humps all day suffer from back problems (constant vertebral compression). People already with back problems and other injuries may find sudden shocks painful and further disabling. Injuries can be aggravated and healing retarded. Disabled people may feel less able to travel around.
5. If slowed by large numbers of humps drivers may feel more inclined to travel faster and to take more risks in other places along their journey (please don’t say “They shouldn’t do it!” we are talking of human nature here - and good law and governance should always take into account our human failings!)
6. And strangely enough children even find these humps attractive to play on - roller-boarding and suchlike. They actually encourage children to play in the roads!
|
7.
|
Specialty and Special Occasion Cars
|
While low-undercarriage cars are legal on our roads then we should allow that our roads should accommodate them. If there is a problem with people “speeding” in such cars then that is a matter for the Police who should be allowed the resources to deal with such matters. It is not a right of ours to restrict such people to only taking their car as far as the end of their cul-de-sac. This will happen to at least one person in Fossdale if this Humps Scheme goes ahead.
I am aware that humps can be a particular problem for another group of road uses - horses and carriages - which can be used in weddings, funerals and for other purposes.
8. Emergency Vehicle Delays.
There are plenty of people, people who ought to know, who are desperate for governments to take notice of them. They say delays from humps are costing lives - far more lives than the humps could possible save!
(see 8 of appended reference 2).
I attach a copy of a press release issued by Staffordshire Emergency Paramedics in April this year. (Appended Reference 3. [AR3] ). You will notice that although it refers to the whole of Staffordshire it particularly identifies 8 areas of concern - two of them here in Tamworth, one around the Silver Link and the other around the Kerria. Our Government does no studies that I am aware of on this matter. But a study in America [AR2 - part 8] showed an 85-1 risk ratio. That is 85 people would die from delays to emergency services to every one these scheme claim to save. A summery of that report is appended [AR4] and has references to the full report that can be obtained for free. The report also lists many other dangers of road humps. Much of it is the sort of research that our own government is reluctant to sanction.
Your email providing details of accident statistics for Fossdale was just in time for our meeting and I was able to refer to these. I have attached a copy of your email at [AR5].
Of the 9 accidents in Fossdale over the 5 year period you offer, only for 4 could you possibly claim humps may have had any effect at all. The other 4, at the junctions of Fossdale Road/Pennine Way, clearly points to a different problem. No humps are proposed (as far as I am aware) in Hebden.
Yet I asked you for accident statistics for Fossdale over the last 3 years. I already had the statistics from 01.02.1999 to 31/01/02 3 year period. And 3 year periods is how these are normally considered. So I was surprised you gave me the 5 year figures. But only surprised until when I cross referenced the accidents! All those within Fossdale Road itself happened over three years ago, There have been NO injury accidents in Fossdale at all in the last three years relevant to these road humps proposals. Of the detail I have discovered for the previous accidents one was on a Saturday so could not have involved a school-going child pedestrian. I very much doubt whether the other three would also have involved a child pedestrian going to school (which is the sole purpose as far as I can see of “Safer Routes to School”) - but as that information and the time of day is not available to me I can only guess. I do know that the one serious accident you refer to was actually one month over the five year period - on the 01/11/1999 - but I will not quibble. The main point is that such a low rate of injury accidents indicates much lower impact speeds around Fossdale than your Advisory Panel seems to believe.
Also, far from agreeing with you that child fatalities (have there ever been any in Fossdale?) can be reduced by getting people out of cars, the evidence seems to suggest that child fatalities over the years have reduced (much more than the overall fatality figures) as people have more and more taken to driving their children to school. I would assume that this is because the children are then in the protected and supervised environment of their parents car. To further develop this postulate I enclose a paper by Safe Speed expert Paul Smith [AR6]. Take children out of the cars and those fatality figures may well go up again. You must remember that parents often drive the children to school on the way to work - or on the way to dropping off another child at another, further away school, or for fear of letting their child walk to school for a number of reasons, accidents, and bullying by older boys amongst them. You are really not going to get those people to get out of their cars by putting humps all round Fossdale Road.
I now refer you to the London Road Safety Plan a copy of which you will find on the internet on -
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/london-road-safety-plan-work-in-progress.pdf
Under the heading “Road Safety - Safer Routes to School” it says -:
“ A review has established that the safety value of safer routes to school is limited. There are few if any collisions involving children on the way to or from school and the schemes are intended to produce a shift in the way children travel to school rather than a reduction in casualties. “
I attach a copy of the report [AR7] There it is - in black and white - from the people who lead in the “Safer Routes to School” schemes - they are NOT about road safety. It is dishonest then to claim they are! They are about getting people out of cars - presumably by making the costs of repairs and transport so high that many who might barely afford it now are squeezed off the roads (or - just as likely - to run their cars illegally to keep jobs, commitments, etc.).
I will just refer you to another piece of research, copied below, which again contradicts your main assumption - that cars are the real big enemy - this research is backed up, scientific and probably more valid than that which our anti-car Government is liable to produce -:
Staffordshire County Council has the following as its stated aim;-
'to encourage forms of transport that improve the health of the community'
Buses - Buses are indeed a major environmental concern, emitting the two most carcinogenic chemicals known to science when the engine is under load, i.e. pulling away from high street bus stops. These are 3-nitrobenzanthrone (NBA) and 1,8-dinitropyrene (DNP), only 0.0000003 grams of these pollutants caused 6 and 5 million mutations respectively in standard AMES tests of carcinogenicity.
According to recent research by Calor, standing in the car-free centre of Oxford for 24 hours is equivalent to smoking 61.4 Rothmans "Light" cigarettes in terms of inhalation of Nitrous Oxides. Oxford was the worst of 30 sites tested.
Health of Children and the school run: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/bmj.38169.688102.F71v1.pdf
Professor Wilkin and Research Colleagues of Derriford Hospital, Plymouth compared activity levels at a primary school. Some children walked to school and others were driven. The results of extensive research found that there was no impact on total weekly activity. Walking on average half a mile to school accounted for just 2% of the children’s activity, while those driven by car matched the overall activity of those who walked to school. (From: BMJ Online First).
(Comment) Safer Routes to Schools is all about removing the choice of taking children to school by car. If emergency services have to be delayed to achieve this, then they will, and they don't seem to care. It is impossible to believe that the ambulance service would not be concerned about measures which slow them down. Under Section 3 of The Highways (Road Hump) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1483, a representative of The Ambulance Service attend the planning meetings.
Note: - A Wyrley Resident has recently received £500 from Staffs CC for damage to the front suspension of his car.
Humps are an old fashioned method of traffic calming - half London Boroughs are about to dump the hump in favour of other measures.
If Staffordshire County Council were indeed serious about such an aim they wouldn’t build such spacious and luxurious car facilities for their own use. Same as most other Councils in the country!
Your final stated aim is to achieve reduction in “speeding” vehicles. Humps will of course slow down the vast majority of vehicles - well below the limit for the road. So what is highways definition of “speeding” vehicles? You do not have one! Clearly humps will not slow down the determined miscreant who may actually use humps for speed practice! Also, as we have already shown by accident figures etc., it is most unlikely that speeding is the issue in Fossdale - or even in any of the accidents in Fossdale - over the years. Much more likely is the probability of poor driver judgement and road conditions - which humps can only make worse. Other things may be done to address these issues. And I refer to some that may be discussed here.
Other Possibilities (in no particular order)
|
1.
|
Have you considered staggering the two schools’ opening and closing hours? Say by about 15 minutes?
|
|
1.
|
The school warning road signage is poor. What would it cost to upgrade this?
|
|
1.
|
It would be helpful if the crossing warden could be helped by flashing amber or red warning lights by the schools in both directions.
|
|
1.
|
It may be impossible to get a 20mph limit over a very short stretch outside the schools. However, have you considered a 20MPH illuminated WARNING sign (in a warning red triangle) illuminated only at times of school opening and closing? It does not of course have legal force - but how many would twig that!! How much would it cost?
|
|
1.
|
Anti-skid surfaces to and from the Zebra crossings would also be, useful especially on any downhill section.
|
|
1.
|
Education, education, education!! For drivers and pedestrians. What sensible, affordable plans could be made in this direction? Are the funds that are available to the humps scheme limited only to humps? Would this money be lost entirely if the humps were not built? If so who made that decision?
|
|
1.
|
A job for national government as well as Staffordshire County Council - bring back police onto the beat - lots of them - stop tying them down with petty bureaucracy, silly time-wasting procedures and madcap handicaps where they have to treat all miscreants as if they were perfectly normal decent people. We don’t just need police - we need them to be effective too!!
|
|
1.
|
Chevrons, perhaps even rumble strips and warning lights have all proved to be effective even by our own Government’s measuring methodologies. These could be considered.
|
Indeed there are other, wider considerations (supply of decent school bike sheds?) if you really want children to be “healthier” about their journeys to school.
TO SUM UP
|
1
|
For many reasons - all listed and expanded upon here - Stonydelph and Fossdale Residents do not want the proposed, or any, humps in Fossdale road - or in any other road in Stonydelph.
|
|
1
|
Stonydelph Action does not believe any of the stated aims of “Safer Routes to School” are achievable by this Fossdale Humps Scheme and as such it would be an enormous waste of public money - which may well have a negative effect on road safety - and health.
|
|
1
|
Stonydelph Action urge that the panel consider all the material, presented here, produced and collated by various experts, to show humps are indeed harmful to communities.
|
|
1
|
Stonydelph Actions urges the Advisory Panel to reconsider their proposal with a view to replacing the humps with other alternatives - some of which have been suggested here.
|
|
1
|
Stonydelph Action asks that a representative of the group is invited onto this, or any other Advisory Panels that may be set up to help discuss alternatives on this or any other plans that may in future affect Stonydelph residents.
|
Finally
|
1.
|
Please would you inform me of your intentions following this consultation after you have considered all submissions. If these do not accord with the majority will of those writing in, including our own submission, could you advise us of when the matter will appear before council and any other details that we may need to enable us to lobby and present the issue through Council procedures.
|
|
1.
|
We would welcome some explanation as to why the authority was not acting in accordance with a majority of residents wishes - if that should turn out to be the case.
|
|
1.
|
We would be grateful for the Authority’s answers to questions posed in this submission.
|
|
1.
|
We would ask that you make available to us any form of appeal or procedure that may be used should you decide to go ahead with these, or any, humps in Fossdale Road.
|
Yours sincerely
Mr Chris Cooke
Secretary - Stonydelph Action
