A Council consultation document - how exciting! Wonder if we'll be among the 1% of households who actually receive it? There are four flats - four different households - where I live in Manor Mount. None of us has received anything about traffic calming. None of us received the last consultation document (about a Planning Application on Waldenshaw Road) either. Only one flat received the last Swimming Pool questionnaire. Two out of four got the CPZ one a couple of years ago. There have probably been lots of others we're simply unaware of. Why is distribution so hit-and-miss? It isn't like the Council can't find us when it wants to. (We all get our Council Tax bills without fail.) No wonder response-rates are so low; it ain't public apathy, it's Council incompetence.

A Council consultation document - how exciting! Wonder if we'll be among the 1% of households who actually receive it? There are four flats - four different households - where I live in Manor Mount. None of us has received anything about traffic calming. None of us received the last consultation document (about a Planning Application on Waldenshaw Road) either. Only one flat received the last Swimming Pool questionnaire. Two out of four got the CPZ one a couple of years ago. There have probably been lots of others we're simply unaware of. Why is distribution so hit-and-miss? It isn't like the Council can't find us when it wants to. (We all get our Council Tax bills without fail.) No wonder response-rates are so low; it ain't public apathy, it's Council incompetence.

The problem with the consultation is you get to vote on the 20mph zone (something that is not enforcable) but you do not get to vote on the increase to speed humps on Fairlie Gardens, Horniman Drive, Liphook Crescent, Ringmore Rise, Tewkesbury Avenue, Davids Road, Manor Mount, Waldenshaw Road. Only one of these roads will benefit from speed humps. For the rest it is a waste of council money.

Back in Perry Vale North there are no speed humps on Shipman Road, Gaynesford Road, or South Road. So why are the council determined to hump Fairlie Gardens, Liphook Crescent, and Horniman Drive? (even the bit with a hair-pin bend I assume).

Unfortunately the only way to stop these useless humps is to vote against the 20 mph zone. But then there are few roads where you can get to 30mph in the area anyway, so the whole thing is a bit pointless.

And why when the consultation officially started on 1st August are there no diagrams on the web and has it taken the council four weeks to get the consultation documents to residents? I suspect the answer is the same as the reason it was conducted during the school holidays - they want as little consultation as possible so they can push through their plans and so no residents have time to organise any campaign against the proposals.

I'm against hump enforcement in a 20mph zone. As Michael says this is a complete waste of money in roads where there is very little speeding traffic, in addition these road humps hinder emergency services.

By all means restrict the area to 20mph, and occaisionally employ enforcement officers to check the speed of cars in these areas - but common sense needs to prevail.

I think that 20mph would be a very sensible limit in residential roads. Oddly the maximum throughput of traffic through a single lane and keeping safe distances is achieved at just under 20mph. That means that there would be better flow, less congestion and probably better average speed if it were implemented across London.
However, the weasel words in yet another duff Lewisham "consultation" is that there will be effectively no enforcement and the additional humps would have to do it. The humps are a pain, bad for drivers, really uncomfortable for cyclists and aggravating for residents.
There are many possible ways of encouraging/enforcing a 20mph limit - cameras, speed limitation on cars, advertising and official speed detection units in random sites.
However Government appears to be utterly lily livered on the matter, so the speed limits will be ignored, but Lewisham will be able to tick the 20mph zone coverage box on some audit or other.

I am all in favour of 20mph limits. However, I will vote 'No' because this isn't a serious attempt and I do not want even more road humps.

The risk is that Lewisham will take this as literal and conclude that people do not want a 20mph zone, nor traffic calming measures in their area.

I would have thought a 'yes vote' on condition of enforcement, etc, would be preferable. The objective should be to get the best traffic calming result available rather than to, pardon me, just to stick one up the Council.
Either way we can't let things continue the way they are. There are still plenty of roads around here where traffic can easily go in excess of 30 and sometimes 50 including Ringmore Rise and Netherby Road. There are humps in Ewelme but they don't stop people racing up and down as a solitary measure. But a clearly marked 20mph zone with a threat of enforcement /fine might go some way towards that.

I would urge people to consider the young and vulnerable in any response that they make, as there are lot of schools in the area, hence a lot of young children around, and it is these groups that have higher risks of critical injury and death from speeds, even little in excess of 30mph. There are so many efforts these days to get kids walking and cycling to school ( the Walking Bus) that we really do need to make sure its safe for kids to do so and hopefully the experience of motorbikes fatally crashing within sight of passing schoolchildren, (Stillness) ,cars crashing into bus stops( London Road) and other dreadful incidences elsewhere in the UK of cars mounting pavements and mowing down passing children and parents, will be few and far between in se23.

Netherby had rather high humps from what I remember. Perhaps this still doesnt stop speeding!!!

But without enforcement it is pointless and there are no enforcement powers beyond the speed humps which, as you point out from cars breaking the speed limit on Ewelme Road, does not stop speeding. I would be all in favour of 20mph speed cameras outside Fairlawn, but this will remain a 30mph road and there will be no additional controls beyond advisory signs which make no difference on Church Rise or Westbourne Drive.

What would make the roads like Ewelme, Horniman, Westwood safer would be mirrors so you can see round bends and over hills. No plans for any speed cameras or mirrors in this consultation.

The only people to benefit from speed bumps are Kwikfit and the shock absorber manufacturers

mini round-abouts are a good alternative to humps, although for some drivers they are pretty much the same thing.
But these drivers run the risk that some other idiot is approaching the junction with the same speed/attitude.

My feelings exactly.
Without enforcement there is in fact no lower limit. Signs, humps equate to nothing.
To be honest the speed of cars on Church Rise has not changed at all, apart for lowered cars, which have slight difficulty with the cushions.

Given the choice of having the "traffic calming" or not having it on Church Rise, I would have to say NO to it.

Reason being, due to cars being able to straddle the cushions, and the lay out of the cushions, not only are the cars doing 30-40mph down the hill, but they slalom and swerve all the way down the road now. To me.. more dangerous NOT less!

I agree that some roads are high risk, and need managing. But to be fair, rather than spending a couple of thousand per cushion or whatever it is these days, and imposing a speed limit which CANNOT be enforced, I would rather see the money put into an enforcement pot and enforce a zero tolerance zone around vunerable areas.

That way there is some return for the money spent, there is a punishment for people flaunting the speed limits around schools, and more to the point, if 32 would result in a ticket, points and a fine, people would drive in these areas at SUB 30mph almost making the lower limit enforcable.

I hope all that makes sense.

I'm all for controlling traffic speeds in residential areas. But they want to put speed humps in the area enclosed by Westwood Park, Honor Oak Road and Canonbie. I hold that it's not possible to drive up or down Horniman Drive, with its hairpin bends, at more than 20 mph - if that - but there are 2 speed humps planned for this stretch. Tewkesbury Avenue is too narrow to drive above 20. And we certainly don't need humps in Liphook Crescent! But the "consultation document" forces us to vote either for or against a 20 mph limit, with no other questions. So if you don't want your quiet bendy hilly road filled with speed humps, you have to vote against the speed limit - however advisable you think that would be. And what kind of consultation takes place at the height of the holiday season with just 1 week to reply. Someone at the Council has been taking a leaf out of the Vogon rulebook.

Despite claims that speed humps make no difference, I think they make quite a lot of difference, and people's understandable frustration at going "ber-bump" still seems to me to matter less in the greater scheme of things than cars scything down children at 40mph. Notwithstanding a couple of posts here, we certainly need traffic calming in Waldenshaw Road, Manor Mount and David's Road, as residents here have been saying for many years. Personally I'm easy as to whether we have chicanes, humps or a man with a red flag. If it makes it safer, I'm for it. If it makes no difference (which I doubt), we're no worse off. I've returned my form accordingly.

Sleeping policemen are more effective than real policemen when it comes to speed enforcement. Currently 80% of the population admit to breaking the speed limit so putting up a sign that says 20mph would probably be headed by 1 in 5 cars who probably live on the road.

Speed bumps on the other hand are obeyed by nearly all as there is the fear of the constant penalty of wrecking your suspension. The same has to be said of working speed cameras, we have all been overtaken by some idiot only to find ourselves stuck behind him a few hundred yards later going 25mph through a 30mph speed camera.

Clearly there is support for traffic calming in the Manor Mount, Waldenshaw Road, David Road area, and this is understandable. But why does the same consultation land us with speed humps (not speed cushions which the Manor Mount area is getting) in the relatively quiet roads at the top of Horniman. Why is the Council making me vote against a perfectly sensible 20 mph limit, just to make sure that we don't get totally unnecessary speed humps in Liphook Crescent. Is this "divide and rule" or town hall laziness, or is it something more sinister?

I think the time has come for me to film some footage on Church Rise and post it up on here, to demonstrate why there are objections to speed cushions especially.

Sadly emergency vehicles are getting squeezed more and more, and limited to which routes they can use to get to an emergency.
For example, an RTC at the mini roundabout at the end of Mayow Road, would take maybe an extra minute or more to get to, as the fire engines cant go up Sunderland, so instead they have to use Church Rise.

I have NO problems with emergency service vehicles using my road at any time of day or night.. I just pity the people who have to wait longer for emergency attention.

Ultimatly, for the idiots out there in company vehicles, high suspension vehicles, or old sheds..... humps, bumps and lumps in the road make very little difference.
And on the flip side, speaking of damage to the suspension. Sadly with the build quality of the speed humps out there, a LOT of cars suffer damage even at low speeds.

I would say proper studies should be carries out on each road, and trials of chicanes etc should at least be tried before resorting to MORE humps in the roads.

Humps are not the answer, sadly.
A change in attitude IS the answer, but its how you bring that about.. Its nigh on impossible.

Shared space possibly? I know it has been attacked by RNIB et al recently, but I have seen it working well.

The proposed scheme includes one hump for Fairlie Gardens, opposite "The Haven", which is not shown on the map of the proposals, although FG is listed in the list of roads. Apparently, any road over 70m long has to have at least one hump

Does this render the whole consultation null and void, given that they have not presented a full picture of the proposals?

So why no humps on Gaynesford, Loxton, South or Shipman Roads in the Perry Vale North 20mph zone?

I have yet to see any government consultation that presents the full picture - I am sure they will not regard the Fairlie Garden detail as voiding the whole consultation.