TO suggest that objectors to speed humps are a minority with bees in their bonnets is both purblind and arrogant.
The many objections to humps raised by readers have been dismissed on the premise that humps will reduce speed which, in turn, will reduce serious impacts. There are several flaws in this reasoning:
1. Some drivers increase their speed between humps.
2. Some drivers play "speed games" on the humps.
3. Some drivers concentrate on the humps at the expense of looking at a wider angle.
4. A child is just as easily killed beneath a slow heavy object as a fast one. I am referring to crushing.
5. A slow vehicle is probably quieter than a fast one, thus reducing sound as a warning.
Along with other bee-bonneted readers, I would welcome a 20 mph limit in areas where children are likely to be in the road. Maybe residents in such areas would vote to ban vehicles altogether, though I doubt it.
What we need to address is the problem of reckless speedsters. There is adequate provision in the Road Traffic Act 1991 (C40 section 3) and The Police Reform Act 2002. Pedestrians, motorists, councillors and the police themselves need to decide whether we want safe roads or anarchy.
Cameras and concrete cannot think. It is our problem and our solution.
John A Turner
Stonesteads Way
Bolton
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article