|
We will try to pull all arguments together so you can make your decision. If you can add to the list either in favour or against road humps, or if you can provide a better or more complete argument for either side, please use the contact us button on the left.
|
| Argument FOR | Argument AGAINST |
| Road humps reduce traffic in locations where road humps have been laid |
Although road humps have been shown to reduce traffic in humped areas by on average 27%, each vehicle will generate more pollution as it brakes and accelerates, and create more noise as it goes over the hump. The noise and pollution will usually be much higher with humps than without. Furthermore, road humps increase the level of traffic by on average 12% on boundary roads. If most traffic on the humped roads is local within a housing estate, the reduction on traffic volume will be negligible. |
| Road humps in a 20mph zone reduce accidents by 42% and reduce serious injuries or death by 53% |
The accidents saved on the minor roads can be more than compensated for by an increase in accidents on the dangrous, busy, border roads. Figures show hump schemes increase traffic on border roads by 12%. Although that may not seem much compared to the 42-53% headline safety improvement on minor roads, a border road may be 30 times busier and more dangerous than a minor road. For example, if a non-humped minor road had a fatality every 100 years and a humped road every 200 years, a border road every 3.3 years. A 12% increase in accidents on the border road will result in 7.2 extra fatalities every 200 years compared to a saving of one fatality every 200 years by the humps.This assumes a linear danger relationship with traffic volume (the relationship is not linear, and costs/benefits will vary from scheme to scheme based on complex factors, but illustrates the point). |
| Road humps calm traffic |
Traffic is an abstract concept. Traffic does not have emotions so cannot be calm or not calm. This is an example of anthropomorphism. Drivers can be calm or not calm. Drivers are not calmed by road humps. Drivers aggravated by road humps may drive more dangerously. |
| Argument AGAINST | Argument FOR |
| Closing residential roads to through traffic is often a superior choice compared to road humps. Closures can provide more local safety benefits than humps without the noise and vibration, and without discriminating between different cars. Closed roads can discriminate in favour of cyclists and pedestrians. |
Closing roads will often result in a longer journey for residents, offsetting some of the safety benefits. Road closures will also transfer traffic and associated accidents to border roads. |
| Road humps encourage motorists to buy larger SUV cars as they can travel comfortably over humps at any speed. These vehicles are inappropriate for cities, pose a danger to other road users and increase pollution and congestion. The dangers SUVs pose to other road users and the increased speed they can travel over humps may ultimately neutralise any local safety benefits on humped roads. |
No studies have been carried out to show motorist's vehicle selection is influenced by road humps.. |
| Road humps create ground-borne vibrations which may damage buildings. |
Studies carried out by the department of transport show such effects are rare. |
| Many of the buildings on the cator estate bounded by Bromley Road, Whitefoot Lane and Bellingham/Hazlebank Road are around 100 years old, and have very weak, powdery mortar. The mortar can be seen where render or pointing has come away. The mortar is soft and crumbly, a bradawl or screwdriver can easily be poked through. In the absence of vibration, the houses should continue to stand, with good structural integrity. The vibration caused by road humps was not considered in the design of the buildings. In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, it would be sensible to suspect the mortar will collapse over a period of sustained vibrations like those generated from road humps. An early symptom could be blowing plaster, render and pebbledash, with mortar dust behind. Do we know for certain how these buildings will respond to the vibrations caused by road humps, particularly over 10, 25 or 50 years? |
No specific information. Please see answer above. |
| Road humps increase the levels of pollution. Vehicles accelerate then brake when coming up to a hump. As vehicles accelerate, the fuel mixture in the engine is enriched. The enriched mixture increases the level of allergy-inducing hydrocarbons and carbon particulates in the exhaust. As a vehicle brakes, it generates brake dust. |
A DETR leaflet 9/99 indicates that putting humps 60m apart, instead of 100m apart, helps counter the polluting effects of humps by discouraging accelerate/brake driving |
| As vehicles go over road humps, much of the forward momentum is converted into heat in the suspension system and vibration in the ground. Regardless of how a hump is designed, more fuel consumption and therefore more pollution will result from vehicles travelling over road humps. |
Some of the extra emission will be offset by a lower volume of traffic within the humped area. |
| Studies into the effects of humps on building structures have not considered long term effects of vibrations on building structures over, say, a 25 year period. |
There have been no studies to conclude and attribute building damage over such long time frames. In any case, the response of different buildings to vibration varies. |
| Road humps increase the noise levels from transport, particularly when vehicles with heavy loads and scaffolding travel over the humps. Such building lorries which may have loose loads tend to travel early in the morning disturbing sleep. |
Vehicles should tie their loads tightly. |
| Vehicles, particularly smaller, more environmentally friendly cars, are damaged when travelling over large numbers of humps. |
Studies have not been carried out over the long term effects on vehicles. Such effects tend to be obscured by general wear and tear. Specific damage when backed up by substantial evidence has been compensated for by councils. No studues have shown small cars are particularly vulnerable. |
| Given that humps discourage smaller, relatively ecologically friendly cars and encourage larger vehicles and increase the traffic burden on the busiest and most dangerous roads, road humps have no positive nett effect on road safety. |
No study has been carried out so no evidence exists that humps encourage larger vehicles. No determination of the relative safety of the increased traffic levels on border roads has been carried out, and such determination is in any case difficult. |
| Road humps are particularly uncomfortable for people disabled with back and neck problems whether passengers or drivers |
No study has been carried out on the effects of humps to people with specific ailments or disabilities. |
| Humps can make a road un-navigable in severe cold, icy weather. |
With global warming trends caused by pollution, such weather is becoming less common in London. |
| Road humps slow down emergency service vehicles. Road humps have been actively campaigned against by emergency service personnel such as ambulance crews and fire crews. "For every life saved through traffic calming, more are lost because of ambulance delays."
Sigurd Reinton, Chairman, London Ambulance Service; Jan 2003. "They affect our attendance times. Each ramp delays our attendance by ten seconds." The ambulance service claims that more than 500 premature deaths in London each year can be attributed to road humps. "In fires, minutes can cost lives." - Divisional Officer Dean Johns, London Fire Brigade; Oct 2002. In this case, road humps will cause many more deaths than they save. |
Please provide a counter argument. |