Good evening all Hamptonians,

Having started a previous discussion about Station Road and been inundated with replies from other concerned individuals, I met this evening with Cllr Gareth Roberts, who has been enormously helpful and has applauded my idea that we start a campaign to make Hampton roads safer. He has alerted me to the successful '20 is plenty' campaign in Merton, and I will be contacting them shortly for some ideas and support. I would like to initiate a similar campaign here in Hampton, and I am prepared to do as much as I can to make it happen - signs to prompt drivers to slow down, especially where pedestrians and cyclists are most vulnerable.

What I need now, is you! Your concerns, ideas and a little bit of your time. I know how busy you all are, and I have been too, but I can't do this on my own!

I have set up an email account called 20isplenty4hampton@gmail.com

Bombard me! I shall also set up a public meeting with a bit more advance notice this time, and a bit later in the evening, so everyone has a chance to attend. Watch this space! And dangerous, irresponsible drivers? Stop it now, we're after you!

Here's the national website with downloadable content http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/

Views: 4576

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you for that, it's not a new thing with cyclist on the pavement, I do not ride my bike as I am now unsure of the roads and that means I would ride on the pavement, to a degree I do not mind except when they are too close for words, and they do not appreciate that not all people can jump out of the way.  Yet again thank you

Christine

I suddenly realised that I had made a serious error in my fuel consumption calculations and wrote to Rod explaining that mine were similar to those of the AA's (which the 20 is plenty campaign disputes).  I have copied my email below.  I don't agree with Rod's comments on "coasting" and the skewing of road fatalities towards pedestrians, but I have copied his reply as well in the interest of balance.  However, I always get suspicious of organisations who use selective data rather than putting all the facts upfront for others to make an informed judgment, but that doesn't mean that the campaign is necessarily flawed:

"Trevor
 
Many thanks for your interest and picking up on these points. However, here are some comments for consideration:-
 
You may have assumed that the fuel rate consumed per minute is the same at similar RPM. However this would not be the case if less fuel was being metered at a lower speed. Here is a link to an article which looks at the issue of fuel consumption from 20mph upwards. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2109539/Fuel-prices-Slower-driving-... I agree that fuel consumption at 20mph is on average the same as 30mph for “steady state” driving. But when you cap speeds at 20mph you take out all the 20-30mph acceleration which the main use of fuel. The energy for a car to reach 30mph is 2.25 times that required to reach 20mph.
 
I was mocking the AA because they were particularly focussing on the fact that when you speed up between speed bumps it is the constant acceleration and braking the consumes and wastes fuel. This can only be done by driving in exactly the manner that lower speed limits are meant to avoid. A speed limit does not exist for just the length of the speed bump but for the whole road. It was in essence saying that speeding drivers in 20mph zones use more fuel, and hence it was 20mph zones which are a problem rather than the speeding drivers.
 
You cannot “coast” at a steady speed. It is not possible. Vehicle drag will mean that you will slow down. The only way you can maintain a steady speed is by having some power provided by the engine.
 
What you have researched on pedestrian fatalities is exactly our point. For road users within cars then there have been reductions in casualties which have been far greater than the reductions for vulnerable road users. This is very much a result of in-car technology such as curtain air bags, etc. Hence the risk is now far more skewed towards pedestrians.
 
We are therefore happy that our view on fuel consumption and the skewing of road danger towards pedestrians should stand.
 
Best regards
 
 
 
Rod
 
 
 
 
From: Trevor Allan [mailto:tjandspallan@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 22 October 2012 5:22 PM
To: Rod King
Subject: Re: 20 is plenty
 
Rod
 
I seem to have made a significant error in my calculations - although the fuel consumption rates are the same for 20mph in 3rd as they are for 30mph in 4th, the time spent traveling at 20mph is 50% greater than at 30mph, so fuel consumption is 50% higher, excluding other factors.  You make fun of the AA's assertion that 20mph will increase fuel consumption by 10%, but that seems modest compared to the theoretical increase, and I'm not sure it's sensible to mock a well-respected UK motoring organisation who would leap at the opportunity to cut motorists' fuel bills if they thought 20mph was the answer.  You also do yourselves no favours by suggesting that the AA's research should have been done by driving at 20mph in 4th gear, a technique which would involve coasting, which is not accepted by either the police or the Institute of Advanced Motorists.  I suspect, in truth, that there is considerable margin for error in the fuel consumption calculations, and I'm content to accept that the overall effect is neutral.
 
On the issue of pedestrian fatalities, I was a little surprised at the apparent rate of increase shown on the chart, given the UK's road safety record.  I therefore decided to look at the DfT statistics myself and discovered what I imagined was the true picture: pedestrian fatality rates have fallen for ten of the last 11 years, there being an increase in 2011 (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-saf...).  The position with cyclists is different, and the rates over the years seem to show no significant trend, so your campaign may have a greater effect here.  However, the chart you used is misleading because other road user fatalities have fallen faster, making the proportion of pedestrian fatalities increase; and from my 35 years in the safety business, I know that reliance on fatal accidents at the expense of other accidents is misleading in itself because fatalities involve such a small proportion of the total and can fluctuate wildly - even so, overall pedestrian casualties are also down over the same period.
 
I would urge you to be less selective with your data - you only get found out and it undermines your case.
 
Kind regards
 
Trevor"

Christine Tanner said:

Thanks for that! I was beginning to think 'have I completely missed a point here?'

That's great, my concerns are for vulnerable road users, like pedestrians and cyclists etc, so this ends a lot of weight to our quest for safer roads. Now all we need to do is cat the net wider and get more people on board. I am contacting the local primary and secondary schools to see if we can get it on the newsletters. Thank you both for your support!

I just wanted to leave a quick observation. I live on Station Road. My daily routine is down the road cross the street catch the bus go to work. In the evenings I do the reverse occasionally with a detour to Waitrose. Every other day when it's my turn, I take our dog for his morning and evening walks. 

While I would agree some vehicles drive way too fast through the village in my experience it is no worse than anywhere else. I would have to say that I have other pedestrian safety concerns that I think are more of a cause for concern than speed. 

My points mainly deal with cars not considering where they are. I will freely admit that I do not have a driving licence so do not know if these things are strictly illegal but they are not in the publics interest.

First - At the end of Station Rd. by the level crossing. Cars that want to turn left off the road seem to think it is ok to come up the opposite lane of traffic to turn in front of cars that are waiting for the barrier. I know that level crossing sometimes seems to take ages, however the amount of times I have looked both ways - saw everyone at a standstill went to cross only to have to jump out of the way of someone jumping out from around the corner. I have even on occasion seen someone jumping out of the line on Percy road up the opposite lane to turn into Station road. When you get two impatient people on each road the danger and traffic mess is ridiculous. Cars need to be aware of where they are turning and make sure everyone has a chance to see them coming.

Second - A very similar issue. Parking on the roads. Cars seem to park anywhere they can. Which I get you want to pop in and grab your fish and chips and the road is normally busy leaving little room for newcomers, however parking on corners and at odd angles makes it difficult to get a clear view of the road before you are actually standing in it.

I don't think that there is any new laws needed and I don't want to be thought of as a helpless pedestrian I have survived this long and don't need a ton of health and safety non sense. :) I think more so all drivers need to remember they are people too and show consideration for their fellow man. Pedestrians may need to make that same pledge but thats for another thread. :) 

A different point, I have been driving around The Ormands today over their 'humps'.  It is a 30 mph zone, humps we are warned about BUT WHERE ARE NOTICES TO SAY AT WHAT SPEED? Taken at 18 mph wasn't too bad at 20 mph awful, as I can lawfully travel along these roads at 30 mph, should I damage my car, then I can sue the Council as there is NO SIGNAGE of what the average speed should be to go over those humps. 

I diverse, the previous person that wrote, did not complain about the speed of cars along Station Road, but that of those that go around traffic at the level crossing.  Although unlawful if it is clear and drivers are careful of pedestrians, then I think it is ok.  As I have said before the biggest offenders are the buses, if I am halfway across the road and an odd mad driver comes along, mad I know, but I slow down my walking and actually wave them down.

You can put a 20 mph signage on the road itself, but as no one can be booked I think other than make people possibly think, not a lot can be done about it.

Better hurry up about the cyclists, another 2 today heading towards me, and me having to move, I wouldn't mind so much if they rang their bells, should they have them, which by the way is law, if cyclists were insured and had a number plate then maybe they would think twice about breaking the law for which there is a £1000 fine and I would also have something to write down and report them.

Please just leave Hampton alone, I have lived here 13 years it has never been any different, and as far as I know, no one has been hurt. Oh a thought, if all those humps weren't slowing people down from 30 to 18 on surrounding roads then maybe people might not pick up speak later, and within the law.

It's a 30mph legal limit, ie thats the maximum, in other words if one is foolish enough to slam into speed bumps at a speed that is inappropriate for the vehicle then clearly I will need to pay for the repairs.


Bikes have to be sold with bells (though that is going to change) and reflectors etc, But your perfectly legally entitled to remove these.

Bikes need to have lights and reflectors for night use, note no bell! 

Also note that most police and paramedic bikes aren't legal like most bikes they conform to the spirit rather than the letter.

Janice Merritt said:

A different point, I have been driving around The Ormands today over their 'humps'.  It is a 30 mph zone, humps we are warned about BUT WHERE ARE NOTICES TO SAY AT WHAT SPEED? Taken at 18 mph wasn't too bad at 20 mph awful, as I can lawfully travel along these roads at 30 mph, should I damage my car, then I can sue the Council as there is NO SIGNAGE of what the average speed should be to go over those humps. 

I diverse, the previous person that wrote, did not complain about the speed of cars along Station Road, but that of those that go around traffic at the level crossing.  Although unlawful if it is clear and drivers are careful of pedestrians, then I think it is ok.  As I have said before the biggest offenders are the buses, if I am halfway across the road and an odd mad driver comes along, mad I know, but I slow down my walking and actually wave them down.

You can put a 20 mph signage on the road itself, but as no one can be booked I think other than make people possibly think, not a lot can be done about it.

Better hurry up about the cyclists, another 2 today heading towards me, and me having to move, I wouldn't mind so much if they rang their bells, should they have them, which by the way is law, if cyclists were insured and had a number plate then maybe they would think twice about breaking the law for which there is a £1000 fine and I would also have something to write down and report them.

Please just leave Hampton alone, I have lived here 13 years it has never been any different, and as far as I know, no one has been hurt. Oh a thought, if all those humps weren't slowing people down from 30 to 18 on surrounding roads then maybe people might not pick up speak later, and within the law.

I find your reply rather offensive.  I did not slam into them at 30 mph, what is an appropriate speed as humps vary in height?  Even down the same road the height varies, so is one hump 20 , 18 or less? Oak Avenue have had to be changed as they took the sumps of cars, then surely a sign post with recommended speed limit down a certain road with humps should be there, none of us are mind readers, some you can take at 20, certainly not part of The Ormands, so if I do I a moderate speed of 20, then it hit me and my car, what speed should I be doing? Oh I know get out and walk, which I do most of the time (except I was taking my grandson to school in Twickenham, a wee bit far to walk) and use public transport a lot.  I do not need a spirit of a bike, I merely need to know when one is coming up behind my ON THE PAVEMENT, when they should be on the ROAD.  Please don't keep picking points on this, bikes are NOT allowed on the pavements, end of

You chose the speed that your car/bike/van/whatever is happy with, again the speed limit is the maximum speed. what it is not is a target. many rural roads have highly optimistic speed limits.

No argument that bikes shouldn't be harassing folks on the pavement, but equally I do not think finding you've claimed various spurious laws exist is offensive, finding your wrong is never nice I agree.


Janice Merritt said:

I find your reply rather offensive.  I did not slam into them at 30 mph, what is an appropriate speed as humps vary in height?  Even down the same road the height varies, so is one hump 20 , 18 or less? Oak Avenue have had to be changed as they took the sumps of cars, then surely a sign post with recommended speed limit down a certain road with humps should be there, none of us are mind readers, some you can take at 20, certainly not part of The Ormands, so if I do I a moderate speed of 20, then it hit me and my car, what speed should I be doing? Oh I know get out and walk, which I do most of the time (except I was taking my grandson to school in Twickenham, a wee bit far to walk) and use public transport a lot.  I do not need a spirit of a bike, I merely need to know when one is coming up behind my ON THE PAVEMENT, when they should be on the ROAD.  Please don't keep picking points on this, bikes are NOT allowed on the pavements, end of

I was offended by your implication of my going too fast when taking the humps.  I was merely pointing out that signage should be there to clarify which speed I should be doing to ride over the humps without hurting either my back or my car.

 

As to my 'various spurious laws, please go and buy an up to date copy of the Highway Code

I have a copy of the Highwaycode note the lack of any you MUST have a bell, or even reflectors bar night. Only the MUST are where the highwaycode is stating a law rather than just advice.

Well the fact the speed limit is higher than your car can handle the bumps, is really not a issue. folk are supposed to use there judgement, plus different cars/van can handle bumps better/worse. The work van I need to slow to 10/15 mph while some of the work cars can take them at 30mph.

plenty of roads have bends or what ever that mean you need to slow, the fact that your car can't handle the speed bumps at 30mph really isn't a issue, since it's a limit not a target.

Janice Merritt said:

I was offended by your implication of my going too fast when taking the humps.  I was merely pointing out that signage should be there to clarify which speed I should be doing to ride over the humps without hurting either my back or my car.

 

As to my 'various spurious laws, please go and buy an up to date copy of the Highway Code

This is getting rather tedious - I stated that I believe there should be a signage as to what the average speed should be, not whether my car can take humps, which it can.  I will be saying no more and I would appreciate you not responding to my comments anymore, online discussion is fine but when it gets personal I do not wish to participate

The speed bumps have or rather should have markings on them, ie that is your signage, clearly they do not and could not give you a safe speed since it's a piece of string.

Your seeing offence and taking it personally, none here.


Janice Merritt said:

This is getting rather tedious - I stated that I believe there should be a signage as to what the average speed should be, not whether my car can take humps, which it can.  I will be saying no more and I would appreciate you not responding to my comments anymore, online discussion is fine but when it gets personal I do not wish to participate

The recent flurry of posts on this subject does raise an important issue about consistency over the use of speed humps and limits.  I argued with the council (to no avail) about the need to put a 20mph limit on Oak Avenue when I considered that the humps themselves were doing an adequate job - hence my irritation at the plethora of 30mph signs which went up on feeder roads, many of which were (in my opinion) more dangerous to drive on at 30.  Most humps do require speed to be reduced well below 30, but there are some (eg, on the B375 in Upper Halliford) which have been designed to allow traffic to move comfortably at 30.  I would have thought this to be adequate for Oak Avenue (and possibly Station Road), but I suspect the Upper Halliford cushions were put in before the current standard (assuming there is one).  The cushions in Ormond Drive are also quite old, which may explain the problem.  On the issue of damage, I understand that the humps on Broad Lane at the junction of Wensleydale/Nightingale Roads were replaced with the current tables after a taxi grounded on them; I don't know whether any compensation was paid but, clearly, the Council are aware of the potential issue and recent traffic calming measures seem to be designed to avoid this sort of damage.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Matt D.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service