Take a wander down to Lewisham town centre to Mercia Grove.

This a short dead end road with a high brick wall at the end, just in front of the wall has been placed a hump at over ?800.

Regarding enforcement over in Bexley the council has introduced a van with cameras to record breaking of parking restricts leading to fines.

I don't know if under new powers council can now also enforce the 20mph speed limits.

I vote against all new speed humps and suggest the tarmac that is saved in the process go towards finally resurfacing Taymount Rise this year, the 100th anniversary of its last resurfacing.

Note; some facts in this post might not stand up to scrutiny.

I doubt very much a local authority will have any power to enforce a speed limt of any sort.
As it stands there is no legislation to allow prosecution of speeding in these zones most of the time anyway.

Would be lovely to in some way enforce these limits, but as it stands its not gonna happen. And personally I dont feel that massive spending on all these humps is gonna really do much.

PS, I would agree to using the labour and tarmac for resurfacing too.

How about rumble strips, although they get a bit noisy, personally I find them far more uncomfortable to drive over at speed than humps, bumps and lumps.
Maybe with a little strip missing for cyclists / motor cyclists.

Not outside my house please!

Not a dig at yourself Michael, but I am curious.
What is the happy compromise we all hope for.

We dont want noise, we dont want inconvinience, too many streets is too much, but humps are wanted anyway....

I know the simple solution should be people slowing down in residential areas, but we know thats not going to happen.

I am getting the impression here that whatever the solution there will still be almost 50% of the people not happy with it.

Personally I would put up with the noise/vibration any day to stop people using my road as a race track.

Snazy, you plainly never went down or don't remember the two experimental strips of rumble tarmac down Brockley Road - near the mini-roundabout and again by the cemetery - now both mercifully removed. Experience showed that the faster you took these sections, the less painful the rumble, hence rather defeating the object. They won't be doing that again, I fancy!

Quite the opposite in fact, I remember them very well actually. And was actually impressed at how uncomfortable they were to travel over. Like the ones on the A21 approaching roundabouts too.

If I didnt have experience of them I would not have made the comment.

Lets face facts, no one is ever going to be happy regardless of the suggestions, proposals etc.

Foolish people will continue to speed.
Im just grateful that to date there are very few incidents on my road. Lets hope the Church Rise slalom does not change those stats.

A few people I know on Honor Oak Road and Perry Rise complain about vibrations whenever trucks go over the speed humps (particularly I suspect when going too fast).

Rumble strips are equally unfair on anybody trying to sleep or live close to such roads. They work well on trunk roads and in the countryside (outside villages), but are anti-social when implemented in residential areas.

Traffic lights that turn red if you are speeding (with cameras on top) can work well to reduce speeds as people know that if they slow down they will get where they want faster. But I don't think such measures are necessary on Fairlie Gardens.

And thats my exact point.
People are not happy with speeding cars (understandably) but in order to even try and combat them, some inconvinience is going to be incurred.

Sadly, it seems that there is no happy medium here.

Its a situation that no amount of humps or bumps are going to change any time soon.
So which is worse, a speeding car that "could" cause an accident, or a speeding car that THUMPS over the speed humps on the road.

I managed to get the pdf version of the consultation document for those of us who do not live in the area of the 20 mph zone. This can be found at http://www.freewebs.com/foresthill/Fores...020mph.pdf

Presumably it has been misdrawn to include all of Devonshire Road - right up to London Road. This road is part of the south circular and Lewisham cannot include this in the 20 mph zone.

The position of the first hump on David's Road, just as you turn the corner from Manor Mount, would be much more sensible just round the corner at the bottom of Manor Mount, so that people know to slow down for it, rather than braking suddenly as they turn the corner.

In reply to 'Iwerefuming'
The resurfacing of Taymount Rise was promised in 2003 after our successful long winded campaign to get the roundabout area resurfaced


http://www.se23.com/forum-archive/messages/9/22.html

A solution is to hold the Jerk Day every day, lot's of cars, no chance of speeding and good revenue for the local shops.

Sorted.

I'm seeking the views of residents of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate for an "official" Residents' Association response to the consultation. In doing so, I've been doing a bit of reading up on 20mph zones.

The Council imply that they can only impose a 20 mph zone if there are enforcement measures in place. In fact the DfT advice which can be seen at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/...nes?page=4 makes it pretty clear that an area can be made a 20mph zone if 85% of vehicles are already travelling at less than 24mph. It's my belief that this covers virtually all of the proposed roads - even Manor Mount and David's Road.

I live on Netherby Road which has some of the most severe humps around. There are still idiots who are prepared to drive over them at high speed scraping their cars on every one. IMHO humps do not significantly slow down the most dangerous drivers. Wood Vale is a great example of the fact that road cushions (as proposed in David's Road and Manor Mount, presumably for the benefit of the ambulances), serve only to encourage traffic to swerve all over the road.

I'm all for sensible traffic control measures but at the moment I believe that slavishly blanketing entire areas with humps without any need for them is a pointless waste of money.

Could not agree more.

The almost out of control swerving is a serious concern of mine.

Could not agree more.

The almost out of control swerving is a serious concern of mine.

Indeed Snazy, I have only just returned to work after being hit by a driver doing just that in October last year.

I generally drive a very lowered classic car (it looks better lowered), and beside the fact that I tend to cruise slowly around rather than rush around when driving, I have to drive over speed bumps at a extremely low speed. It seems to infuriate drivers behind me who speed up to the bump then brake hard then speed off. In the end they surely never get where ever they speed to before I would get there in a more relaxed manner as with traffic lights, traffic and speed bumps we are surely slowed down in the same way anyway.

I have had a number of lowered cars, so know exactly where you are coming from with that. The other thing of course it the pollution. All that accelerating and braking cant be great for the residents either.

Londondrz, thats shocking mate, hope you are fully recovered. The swerving all over the road is never taken into account in these consultations. Maybe they should visit and observe some of the roads with cushions during peak times.

Those speed bumps that are split in the middle are lethal to pedestrians as well. A year or 2 back I was crossing (okay jaywalking) Honor Oak Road just before the school, and had to jog a bit as a car was coming. Tripped of the middle and catrwheeled onto the pavement on the far side feeling a right idiot!

This might interest some people.
Someone on another forum I use is battling speeders on his road, this is what he has done so far....

http://bbs.scoobynet.com/non-scooby-rela...pdate.html