Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman
|
And what's that supposed to mean ?
You could do an FOI for all evidence used to justify the construction of
speed humps. That should cover it.
There can be a number of reasons for the introduction of speed humps,
including:
1. An evidenced (high) incident rate - especially if it involves
vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians, persons under 16),
excessive speed was a cause of incidents and/or the incidents have been
classed as Serious;
2. The route deemed a 'rat run' and inappropriate levels of traffic
are using what should primarily be a residential street (this is very
subjective though - ie. Whalley Road is largely residential but it is
also a main traffic route...);
3. Residents making complaints to the traffic authority;
4. Money left to spend from this year's budget; and even
5. An over-zealous councillor kicking up a fuss.
There are probably loads of other reasons but these are some of the most
common. Traffic authorities monitor traffic and incidents on an ongoing
basis - these kinds of analyses are quite common.
Yes, I did speculate that a life or bad injury would be saved after introduction of these speed humps … that’s all we can do really. Past surveys have indicated that ‘Speed Kills’ and the Highways Authority are not just waiting for an accident to happen on some roads, which some people would remark about and demand traffic calming measures. Speed humps, (in my opinion) are the cheapest and most effective .. unlike cameras which are expensive to install and maintain.
You could probably obtain information as to how many emergency patients in an ambulance have been affected by an ambulance going over one. I would think that all types of traffic has been taken into consideration.
I get the impression that the comments in the above posts are aimed at disagreement with them?