Tonight:
4°c
Boris: Forget humps and make roads cycle-friendly
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard19 Nov 2008
BORIS Johnson has written to local authorities asking for road humps to be overlooked in favour of other traffic calming measures.
The mayor has asked council bosses to look at alternatives such as changing the design and management of streets and removing clutter, markings and barriers.
The approach is thought to be more cycle-friendly, and follows the announcement that 6,000 hire bikes will be made available in London. The letters also detail the level of TfL funding awarded to borough councils.
"People often report that they don't want or like road humps, but politicians refuse to listen," Mr Johnson said. "Road humps are often simply a lazy way of delivering slower speeds.
"I want to encourage councils to be bold and to think much more creatively about ways of achieving slower speeds, and creating better streets where drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists interact responsibly.
"There are circumstances where road humps serve a purpose, but until someone takes a stand and says that they are inappropriate in a lot of cases, we will never achieve better London streets."
Reader views (21)
Great if someone can find a cheap, reliable way to slow traffic down without resorting to speed humps - as Boris is right, no motorist really likes them. I'm sceptical a convient alternative really exists though, especially one that works on narrow residential streets.
What drivers fail to reaslise is they bring unpopular speed-reducing measure on themselves by their failure to self-regulate. Why does anyone think it sensible to drive at over 30 on a residential street? Would you go down it at 70 if there was no one to stop you?! If you want less speed humps on our roads just start obeying the limits which are mostly quite reasonably imposed. Is it so hard?
- Nigel, Streatham, 24/11/2008 12:53
Report abuse
Charles: You say "How about also getting rid of speed cameras and making safer and continuous cycle lanes", implying that the only people who are killed and injured by speeding motorists are cyclists. They are not of course! As for shock absorbers, try driving a bit slower over the humps! As for fuel, well, it's just more tosh of course. I mean how many miles a day does the average motorist spend driving on roads with humps?!
As for Boris Johnson's disingenuous and fraudulent claim that road humps deter people from cycling, I think most of us can now see exactly where he is really coming from. The reality is precisely the opposite - ie the main reason people give for NOT cycling is their fear of serious injury - or worse - from fast-moving traffic.
Johnson is well aware of this of course, and along with his lame excuse that there isn't enough money in the kitty to introduce a London-wide 20mph limit (on all roads except the main thoroughfares), he has exposed himself for what he is - ie a friend and a champion of the motoring lobby, and devious and duplicitous at that.
In Hull, where they have a widespread programme of road humps and 20mph limits, the number of road deaths has been reduced by 90 per cent in said areas, as has the number of serious injuries. I mean how lazy is that, Boris!
- Alan, Harrow, 21/11/2008 01:41
Report abuse
Reg,
you wont be happy until all vehicles other than cycles are taken off the roads,wonder what you will campaign for in your nonsensicle rants then,reduced sunlight ? free money for cyclists ?
i suggest you arrange to be a passenger in a HGV and learn about the 'blind spot' they have ,perhaps you could then tell other cyclists of the problem of which there is no solution and learn to cut HGV drivers some slack and realise the danger cyclists put themselves in when the insist on being at the front at junctions and traffic lights.
- Peter Ex Londoner, Hartlepool, 20/11/2008 08:30
Report abuse
Shock absorbers and Fuel; two expenses which will be reduced as these irritating bumps are flattened. How about also getting rid of speed cameras and making safer and continuous cycle lanes, whilst there will be an excess of manpower available for the next few years?
- Charles Lucy, London UK, 19/11/2008 22:38
Report abuse
Speed cushions - the lumps in the middle of the road - work on an estate here to get speeds down to below 30mph. Let's also turn round civil liability in collisions so that the motorist has to prove the cyclist was at fault, rather than the current system which favours the driver encased in a ton of metal, often travelling at an inappropriate speed and paying too little attention.
- Will, Colchester, 19/11/2008 21:56
Report abuse
Like all Tories, what Boris is trying to do is legalise speeding.
- Austen, London, 19/11/2008 20:36
Report abuse
It's becoming increasingly obvious that Boris Johnson hates pedestrians.
- Jake, London UK, 19/11/2008 18:38
Report abuse
Cycling to work every day, I use several roads that have speed humps. These humps slow cars down, and prevent these streets becoming rat runs for motorists. Removing them will mean more cars, going faster. NOT good for cyclists.
So, what positive alternatives is Boris suggesting?
- Jim, London, 19/11/2008 18:29
Report abuse
Trust Boris to support his own methods of getting to work quicker by cycling on pavements and ignoring red lights.
- Keith Price, Luton, England, 19/11/2008 17:11
Report abuse
On reflection humps are a health and safety risk to cyclists. Wonder if any cyclist has considered suing an authority, it would soon make them wake up!
- Tony Islander, Herts, 19/11/2008 16:31
Report abuse
Jo and Reg: when cyclists start obeying the rules of the road (and pavement), maybe you'll get a bit more respect from other road users.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 19/11/2008 16:25
Report abuse
Get rid of all road humps which damage our cars and put speeding fines £100 with 7 days to pay.
- Fredk Homburg, Luton, England, 19/11/2008 15:54
Report abuse
I agree with Jo that cyclist box occupancy by motor vehicles is scandalous. Particularly given that most lorries will occupy them fully at red lights, and it is these drivers which purport to be considerate drivers whose accidents are based entirely on their "blind spots". It should be six points an offence, with a minimum one year ban for two offences; reduced visibility at junctions is precisely what causes most accidents. I also don't think pedestrians crossing at green welcome juggernauts loping into their territory and revving their engines, already moving as the orange light comes on.
Generally, I agree with the Mayor on this. Classical road bumps are a lazy solution producing greater vehicle emissions and more danger from the sudden acceleration and decelleration which is the response of many drivers.
However, scaled changes in road levels (more subtle than bumps) and changes in texture such as along the Cut in Waterloo, and in Walworth Road, are far more effective.
- Reg, London, 19/11/2008 14:53
Report abuse
Bob
Try taking a road hump on a folding bike. Its really quite unpleasant.
- George, London, 19/11/2008 14:39
Report abuse
So Mr. Johnston says: "Road humps are often simply a lazy way of delivering slower speeds. I want to encourage councils to be bold and to think much more creatively about ways of achieving slower speeds, and creating better streets where drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists interact responsibly."
Does he care to offer an practical suggestions as to the alternatives? Saying road humps are unpopular is stating the bleeding obvious, but unless Mr. Johnston is proposing practical alternatives, this is really nothing more than political puff.
- Mark Lee, Vauxhall, 19/11/2008 14:35
Report abuse
Perhaps Mr Johnson would be kind enough to also suggest how ANY traffic speed reducing measures are supposed to be enforced and/or regulated? Regardless of what measure is put in place, be it road speed table, speed bump, 20mph zone or whatever - if nobody enforces the speed limit in effect, then how is any measure going to work effectively?
Certainly, here in Lambeth neither the Council nor the police want to take responsibility for enforcing either the speed limits and/or the traffic related legislation! So what's the point?! The Department For Transport is quite clear on whose responsibility it is for road safety and for the enforcement of traffic related legislation but that doesn't appear to matter much either!
Boris Johnson certainly has his work cut out for him on this issue as it is unlikely that many Councils will bother to take any notice i.e. business as usual!
P.S. You can't mention the resultant noise created as a result of the speed bumps etc as councils are likely to hide behind that well known legislation - Section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990!
- Fraser, Telford Park, 19/11/2008 14:13
Report abuse
As a cyclist I like road humps.
If Boris really wanted to help cyclists he should demand that the Met enforce the boxes for cyclists at junctions, which are massively abused by drivers.
I don't think Boris is a friend of cycling. He's just pretending to be.
- Jo, London, 19/11/2008 13:17
Report abuse
London needs dedicated cycle paths - look at Berlin where there are paths roads for cars, paths for cycles and paths for pedestrians - why can't can't we do the job properly? Regarding Londons cycle problems all we get are flawed ideas that are sure to satisy no-one. Look at Berlin and learn from the best!
- Mc, London, 19/11/2008 13:09
Report abuse
Perhaps he means uneven bumps, lumps, badly fitted manhole covers and megathick yellow lines all of which are lethal for cyclists.
- Maggie, Hammersmith, 19/11/2008 13:07
Report abuse
There are traffic calming measures that are cycle-friendly and ones that push you into the traffic or make you fall off if you are indicating to turn with your arm.
Road planners never consider cyclists. There's a lump of concrete in seagrave road (SW5) that forces you into the path of ambulances responding to an emergency. Stupid.
- Mark, Hammersmith, 19/11/2008 12:52
Report abuse
How do road humps affect cyclists? As a cyclist myself I would say not at all, what a stupid piece of legislation.
- Bob, Cheam, 19/11/2008 12:17
Report abuse
