Does city need speed humps?

YES says Coun Ann Reid, executive member for planning and transport on City of York Council:

No one likes speed humps. Most drivers see them as an uncomfortable inconvenience, which slows their journey. While we all agree that road humps are far from ideal, at present they are the only answer immediately available to reduce speed and improve road safety and reduce accidents. We will, however, be reviewing their distribution and generally favour the use of speed cameras - if they can be agreed by all partners - rather than physical hurdles to control speeds.

Speeding is endemic. Most drivers regularly break speed limits. This is true on all classes of roads, all times of day and all days of the week. Speeding is not confined to "boy racers". Studies show speed limits alone do not control speed. Ninety per cent of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in London (roughly 150 a year) occur on 30mph roads.

The Metropolitan Police found that 63 per cent of all drivers on such roads exceed the speed limit with ten per cent driving above the 50mph limit.

Speeding kills, maims and increases the severity of any accident. The chances of survival for a person hit by a car dramatically reduce the faster the car goes. At 20mph, 95 per cent of people survive; at 30mph, 55 per cent and at 40mph, only 15 per cent of people live. Yet breaking a speed limit is not considered a "real crime" and drivers justify speeding with excuses such as:

It was unintentional

I was in a hurry

The limit is wrong

My modern car can stop quickly

I was not a lot over the limit

But speeding is not considered acceptable. While many motorists flout speed limits, the public - most of whom are also drivers - are becoming more concerned about the dangers and the need to control it. We have a waiting list of more than 250 requests for traffic calming schemes.

Road humps work. National independent and council research proves humps cut speed. Independent studies prove traffic-calming reduces through-traffic - in one case by 24 per cent.

We must strike a balance between reducing vehicles' speed and the inconvenience to regular users, particularly buses and emergency vehicles. City of York Council has consulted upon, and adopted, a Speed Management Plan which identifies where different types of traffic-calming can be used and where they are inappropriate.

We are adopting a policy of targeting traffic-calming to areas such as schools where people recognise the need. We want to see an increased use of chicanes and user-friendly "gateway" features.

We shall encourage the police to take a more proactive approach by making use of speed cameras and enforcement.

The Government recognises the problems with humps and national research is investigating alternative ways of controlling vehicle speeds. Based in Leeds, one system uses an in-car device linked to roadside transmitters which physically prevents the vehicle exceeding a pre-set limit.

NO says Mike Natt, former senior accident investigator with North Yorkshire police:

You only need to type "road hump" on any Internet search to see the hump is giving people the hump and falls probably a close second to the tax man on the people's hate list.

So should they go? My answer is a resounding yes - and the quicker the better. I hear howls from the local authority and other car-haters, insisting they reduce speed and save lives.

But no one from the council has yet given me an answer to this question - why is a 100mm hump safe while a 100mm deep pot-hole is dangerous?

We should examine a few facts.

Regulations for humps are strict on positioning, dimensions and use. That is, of course, until we introduce the 20 mph zone, when most of the restrictions go out of the window.

Humps should not be less than 25mm or more than 100mm in height.

Research by the Department of Transport reveals that 75mm-high humps have an equal or greater speed-reducing effect than those of 100mm.

So why are ours so high?

The research also indicates that 100mm-high humps pose a greater possibility of pollution, property and vehicle damage and grounding, specifically to buses, emergency vehicles and hearses.

Do they save lives? I suggest this is unproven. The case 'for' is usually supported by a list of statistics, but everyone knows the reliability of stats.

A claim of a 25 per cent reduction can be made if the number of accidents on a road fall from four in year two to three in year three following the installation of humps.

If, however, in year one (which is not counted) there were only two accidents then there has actually been an increase of 25 per cent.

Such statistics do not take account of the circumstances. For example, installing humps based on the fact 12 collisions occurred in a year on a particular road may sound sensible. But does it still sound sensible when it is revealed all 12 collisions resulted from drivers leaving parking areas at low speed?

Do they actually cost lives? Returning to the ambulances recently criticised for failing to meet response times, published research indicates that every hump encountered reduces the response time for fire engines by ten seconds. So every six humps between your house and the fire station could mean waiting an extra minute for that life-saving help when you need it most.

Humps also create damage, noise and pollution. Vehicles are damaged and no one lists the accidents caused by worn steering and suspension components. Road safety adverts say worn shock absorbers kill.

So let's add some humps to wear them out faster. How many worn shock absorbers are out there?

Those who are determined to speed still do so - so humps do not work! What better reason for removing them, as one enlightened council - Barnet in north London - is doing?

Updated: 14:16 Tuesday, August 05, 2003