On this page I criticize the whole idea of traffic-calming -- on the basis that, although it benefits a selected few people, it introduces extra risks and pollution of various kinds.
Go Home.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" -- H.L. Mencken
"Nothing
in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity." --
Martin Luther King, Jr.
. . . Traffic-calming measures: a bad idea
. . . Against traffic calming ___ Car crashes ___ Crash: why vehicles crash page ___ Disabled people
. . . each hump delays traffic up to 9.2 seconds
. . . Emergency-service response ___ The End of Cheap Oil ___ General
. . . High-Tech Solution to Train Noise ___ Humor ___ More humor, at CarLaf01
. . . Law violation by calming ___ Legal liabilitiesThe myth that speeding causes accidents
. . . Ottawa ___ Photo of a car that is not speed-bump compatible!
. . . Photo of dangerous speed bump: lawsuit pending? ___ Pollution ___ Police cameras
. . . Professor Wilde (Queen's U.) ___ Risk page ___ Risk-theory page
. . . Scottish Police chiefs have called for motorway speed limit increase to 80 MPH
. . . Speed ___ Speed limiters ___ Speed limiters kill ___ Speed bumps
. . . Threat to health of residents ___ Threat to safety of residents
. . . Traffic Calming Programs and Emergency Response: A Competition of Two Public Goods
. . . Traffic calming: What is it?
Traffic-calming measures: a bad idea
I note, with some satisfaction, that the big annual Ottawa-Hull bicycle race (held in Aug., 01) did not wend its usual way through central Ottawa and Hull, where throngs of people used to gather, but was held, instead, in a relatively uninhabited area in northwest Hull -- where, presumably, only the most dedicated of fans -- very few of them, it seems -- were there to cheer the heroes on. Why the change of venue? It seems that in the race last year through the downtown route, at least one bicyclist crashed because of speed bumps. One rider got a broken collar bone as a result. I just wonder how many bicyclists voted for putting in speed bumps? I see that the city is considering removing several speed bumps in western Ottawa -- at a cost of $147,000. Why were they put in in the first place?
I am going to flesh out an essay arguing against speed bumps. Among the arguments against them are the following:
1. Increased air and noise pollution -- so much so that, in the USA, the Environmental Protection Agency has specifically refused to provide funding for several street and highway projects, on that very basis. The EPA thinks that we already have more than enough greenhouse gases and noise.
2. Increased risks and expenses to homeowners and others because of slower response by fire services (and potentially increased insurance rates in those areas), ambulances, and police. Eleanor can tell you first hand how painful it was for her to hit even the slightest bump (and there were many!) in her ambulance ride with her broken collar bone. That ambulance ride, by the way, took a half hour longer than otherwise, because the nearest hospital (the Civic -- a very large hospital) had closed its emergency ward for the day -- if you can imagine! Can you imagine a for-profit hospital in the USA closing for a day? Not likely. Can you imagine Burger King closing for a day, just on a whim -- and without notice? Not likely. Not enough people believe in the beneficial power of the profit motive and sheer greed anymore!
3. Disadvantaging of those who use wheel chairs, through the real risk of hitting their head on the ceiling of a vehicle hitting a speed bump. Several lawsuits are pending in the USA on this issue.
4. Traffic-calming measures designed to make cars weave in and out more, and to make streets narrower -- partly through more awkward parking allowances -- increase the risk of not only traffic accidents, and increased noise and air pollution, but make it more difficult and destructive of property in snow-clearing. In Ottawa, one fire-truck has already been damaged (to the tune of $4,000 by ripping up its undercarriage on a speed bump). Another was slowed down seriously in answering a fire when it encountered an arbitrary steel-fence barricade across a street. It rammed through it, at more taxpayer's expense.
If people don't like to live near cars, why don't they go live on a farm or on Walden Pond somewhere, if they can find it? They had better not count on any ambulance service then -- not just our slow one.
The average response time by ambulances in Ottawa is among the very slowest of any city in North America. Why should this be so? Isn't this supposed to be such a pretty city? Just don't have a heart-attack here!
See also Speed bumps.
Americans Against Traffic Calming: http://www.io.com/~bumper/ada.htm This Traffic calming website is produced in Austin Texas. . . . Traffic calming devices which use vertical & horizontal "thrusts or deviations" can and have caused the following: death, injury, pain, discrimination, denied street access for the disabled, increased air pollution and have drastically slowed emergency response times putting you and your family at risk! . . .
Letter by Kathleen Calongne to L.A. City Mayor and Council: http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/texts/canyon.doc Having studied these issues for five years, she presents a well-reasoned case as to the various hazards and disadvantages of traffic-calming measures.
Traffic Calming: http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/trafcalm.htm 1999 Canada Safety Council. Traffic Calming Versus Safety. . . .
Vital public services such as fire, ambulance, police, snow clearing and public transit are affected. So are local businesses and the silent majority of road users.
To plan and implement traffic calming measures is expensive -- projected costs for pilots in the Ottawa-Carleton region range from $6 million to $18 million. Yet, their effectiveness in the Canadian environment is unproven, and their repercussions have not been seriously studied. Most disturbing is the lack of design and installation standards for calming structures. . . .
A delay of just one minute due to speed humps or congestion on narrowed roads can mean the difference between life and death. Inefficient traffic flow on an access route to a hospital puts lives at stake. Snow clearing problems associated with blocked-off streets and other traffic calming obstructions will increase delays in winter, when many home fires and medical emergencies occur. Liability issues associated with traffic calming are hardly ever considered. . . .
Removing lanes and turning the road into an obstacle course creates frustration, leading to dangerous moving violations. Frustrated motorists make dangerous turns or run red lights. "Traffic circles" in residential intersections confuse motorists and hamper snow clearing. Drivers swerve around speed humps into bicycle lanes to avoid damage to their vehicle.
Some parents want to block off streets so their children can play on them. The flaw in this reasoning is that children should not be playing on the street in the first place. . . .
Traffic congestion increases fuel consumption and release of harmful emissions, such as carbon dioxide, suspended particulates and other noxious air pollutants. In 1991, the City of Toronto determined that removing 480 stop signs would save nine million litres of gasoline and eliminate 21,000 tons of air pollutants, producing a 5.5 per cent reduction in emissions by the year 2005. . . .
Speed humps and lane obstructions impede snow clearing -- an important issue in Canada. They also slow buses, requiring more fuel and causing potential scheduling problems. Increased maintenance to vehicles and roads (including repair of the calming structures themselves) means significant unforeseen costs.
Speed humps cause damage to vehicles whether or not they are speeding. Private, law-abiding vehicle owners must bear the expense of added repairs due to wear and tear from going over the humps.
Businesses -- especially retailers and restaurants -- do not want to see their ever-increasing taxes used to prevent customers from reaching them. Efficient traffic flow is critical to the local economy.
Studies on traffic calming show reductions in traffic volume and speeds plus moderate crash reductions. However, they do not assess to what extent traffic, speeding and collisions were diverted to other residential streets or added to roads already congested. . . .
CARM (CAMPAIGN AGAINST ROAD-HUMP MADNESS) HISTORY: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~cavok/hump.html . . . We object to road-humps because they cause pain and distress to people with joint problems, they hinder emergency vehicles, cause vehicles to use more fuel and emit more pollution, damage exhaust systems and suspensions, create shock-waves that crack buildings, are ugly, distort traffic flows, cause road-rage and encourage dangerous driving. . . .
Drivers.com - Traffic Calming: http://www.drivers.com/Top_Traffic_Traffic_Calming.html This US advocacy group opposes traffic calming and provides a guide for motorists who wish to become active against traffic calming initiatives. Excellent links.
Road-Hump Madness Comes to the Heatons: http://petered.dreamwater.com/trans/madness.html . . . Heaton Moor Traffic Calming.
In broad terms, the proposals are for a mixture of road humps, traffic tables and speed cushions on a number of roads in the area . . .
The objections to this are the same as the objections to so called "traffic calming" anywhere, i.e.
It causes increased noise and pollution from vehicles accelerating and braking rather than travelling at a steady speed
It can cause the diversion of traffic along other, less suitable roads
It slows down access for the emergency services with potentially fatal consequences
The speed reduction effect is inconsistent and unpredictable dependent on vehicle type. Big 4x4s can traverse humps with impunity at 40 mph, and may be more comfortable for their occupants at that speed than at 20mph
It can damage vehicle components even when humps are traversed at the designed speed
It can increase danger to vulnerable road users such as cyclists and children by causing drivers to watch out for humps rather than genuine hazards
It does not reduce overall road casualties, it merely redistributes them
It makes daily life more frustrating and unpleasant for drivers - a large majority of the adult population - who have a legitimate right to go about their business
. . . Hopefully enough local residents have written in to object to ensure that it doesn't happen. I know I have!
National Motorists Association: http://www.motorists.com/issues/engineering/SayNOToTrafficCalming.html Say No To Traffic Obstruction. The rational motorists' guide to opposing traffic obstruction strategies.
The term "traffic calming" is simply a device to put a favorable "spin" on tactics used to obstruct, divert and slow traffic. Proponents of these tactics are usually persons who live along urban or suburban streets and object to motor vehicle traffic passing by their homes.
Although proponents usually couch their complaints in terms like "speeders" and "reckless drivers," the true irritant for "traffic calming" advocates is "heavy" traffic. Their desired objective is to divert traffic to other streets outside their neighborhood. The devices employed to accomplish this diversion of traffic include stop signs, speed humps and bumps, lane narrowing obstructions, and absurdly low speed limits.
Increased traffic on residential streets is often caused by misguided and ill-informed management of the main arterials and collector streets. These streets are designed to carry most of the traffic, keeping it off of residential streets. Misguided proponents of "traffic calming" always fail to realize that the reason they are seeing more traffic on their residential streets is because the same tactics have already been applied to main arterials and collector streets. These include improper installation of stop signs, mistimed traffic signals, and under-posted speed limits that have no relation to actual vehicle speeds. Throw in construction and congestion, and it is no surprise that residential streets are experiencing increased commuter traffic . . .
COMBATING TRAFFIC OBSTRUCTION INITIATIVES IN YOUR COMMUNITY
I. Know Thy Enemy II. Know Your Advantages III. Know Your Allies IV. Finding And Gathering Support
V. Arguments Against Traffic Obstruction Devices
Traffic obstruction devices:
A. Can increase response time for emergency vehicles. . . . can seriously damage emergency vehicles . . .
B. Can increase congestion on other streets . . .
C. Will increase vehicle wear and tear, air pollution, and noise. Braking and accelerating in response to speed bumps, speed humps, stop signs, and traffic signals increases fuel consumption and emissions. This can contradict other efforts to reduce emissions and contribute to a community becoming or remaining a "non-attainment" air quality zone, thereby being subjected to federal mandates and restrictions.
D. Can increase street maintenance costs. . . .
E. Increase a community's liability for accidents . . . [WRP: It might also increase your fire-insurance rates. It will certainly reduce your safety because of slower ambulance, police, and fire-fighting response.]
F. May cause physical discomfort, even pain, for disabled persons or persons with physical ailments. . . .
G. Create neighborhood friction. Not all persons (not even most persons) on a given street will appreciate having to run an obstacle course every time they drive to or from home. Some traffic obstruction opponents blow their horns or yell verbal insults when having to slow or stop for speed bumps or humps. Frequently, the response to unnecessary stop signs is to ignore them. . . .
You now have a basic framework for organizing an effort to defeat "traffic calming" measures that ultimately divert, congest and confound urban traffic.
The Next City - What would happen if . . . traffic calming ruled our streets: http://www.nextcity.com/whatif/whatif13.htm The NEXT CITY asked Mike Skene, transportation manager for the City of Victoria, and Jim Sproul, neighborhood activist, to comment.
No Speed Humps: http://www.digitalthreads.com/nohumps/ No Speed Humps! World-wide Road Hump Problems. No Speed Humps!
Drivers.com - Traffic calming a promise unfulfilled: http://www.drivers.com/cgi-bin/go.cgi?type=ART&id=000000303&static=1 To improve safety per unit distance of mobility is to increase mobility per head of population: Implications for traffic calming devices. By: Gerald J.S. Wilde. Date: 1999-09-09. Professor Wilde is the originator of Risk Homeostasis Theory and author of Target Risk. He can be reached at the Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Scholarly article proposes that calming devices are counterproductive to safety, although they may well have beneficial effects in other respects.
Road Access for Disabled Americans: http://www.digitalthreads.com/rada/ Speed humps are barriers to access. . . . Prompt response by fire and medical emergency crews is also critical to many disabled people, so we include information on the slowdown to emergency services. Finally, for general information, we link to a few engineering sites.
See also VIOLATION OF THE ADA.
See also
Austin, Texas, American Statesman, August 4, 1999 "Speed humps scaled back" "Houston has halted its speed hump installation program, limiting the number of humps it will install this year ... "Houston's program has drawn fire from some who say the humps slow emergency response times."
Myths: http://www.users.qwest.net/~erinard/myths%20main.htm Myths, Realities, and Frequently Asked Questions About Speed Bumps and Intersection (Traffic) Circles.
"Time delays have a more negative impact on people the farther they are from help. A 30-second delay in an emergency response is more detrimental to people when added onto a six minute response than when added onto a two minute response. Full-blown traffic mitigation on emergency response routes will disproportionately impact citizens living and working at the edges of Fire Department response districts."
Boulder Fire Chief Larry Donner, March 12, 1997
Myth: "Boulder's neighborhood streets are unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists."
Accident and Emergency Call Trends, 1992-1999
Accident and Emergency Call Totals, 1992-1999
Myth: "Fire departments in other cities approve of bumps and circles."
Reality: Fire departments EVERYWHERE have opposed the devices . . . A fire chief in Portland states that their transportation division did not involve them at all in the initial stages of their project and in fact would not allow them to express their concerns publicly. A firefighter in Seattle stated that they gave up trying to oppose them, and that some of their larger trucks cannot get around the circles. . . .
Myth: "Mitigation devices have been used in other countries for many years with no problems or public opposition."
Britain’s Transport Research Laboratory, a scientific research organization which originated the design of the speed “hump”, reversed its support for the devices after receiving numerous complaints of “excessive noise, vibration, increased vehicle emissions and significant increase in accidents involving cyclists and motorcyclists”. TRL report #307 recognizes a conflict between vertical devices and the desired shift to public transportation, as the devices “cause damage and increase maintenance to buses and cause physical problems to drivers.”
Towns and cities throughout Britain are to spend millions of English pounds lowering or removing 500,000 speed humps to accommodate buses which must meet new disability regulations to allow wheelchair access. “Until this happens, roads with humps have been declared bus-less zones.” (The London Telegraph, Feb. 27, 2000.)
The “success” of the use of the devices can be attributed to the lack of a democratic process for their installation. In 1999, the residents of the city of Leicester, England collected 500 signatures out of 700 homes to express their objection to an installation of humps in their town. It was discovered pamphlets were published rubber-stamping the project before the meeting of the councilors to consider the petition even took place. Such “success” is sought by some members of our Boulder City Council.
Myth: "Lowering speed limits will make the streets safer."
See The myth that speeding causes accidents.
Myth: "Traffic mitigation devices reduce the accident rate."
Reality: Boulder's own statistics do not support this statement. Accidents increased dramatically in the two years after the experimental devices were installed . . . Winter conditions at the traffic circles cause unprecedented pileups. . . .
Myth: "Traffic circles are safe for pedestrians and cyclists."
Myth: "Traffic congestion delays emergency response, so delays caused by traffic mitigation are irrelevant."
Reality: . . . Delay, however incurred or imposed, is deadly. Traffic mitigation devices impose a permanent, 24 hour per day delay on response times. Since these devices are being proposed for neighborhood streets that don't experience congestion, they are undoubtedly the principle cause of delay. In fact, according to the April 8th, 1997 NTMP Status Report written by Boulder's Public Works Department, Page 23, Paragraph 7,
"In 1995, 97% of the responses to the Pine corridor had a response time of 6 minutes or less, while only about 88% of the calls City-wide met the 6-minute criteria. Between 1995 and 1996, the response time for this corridor increased 27.8 seconds compared to an overall increase of 6.21 seconds for the City. Similar degradation curves are found at the 5 and 4 minute response levels. The Department's analysis shows that the degradation is statistically significant and highly correlated to the mitigation devices. . . .
The March 1998 issue of Scientific American includes a special report on the prospects for a continuing supply of petroleum at prices low enough to use it as a primary energy source. The report comprises four articles.
The lead article, by consultants Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere, paints a grim picture. While the oil industry is implying that we have enough oil for the next 40 years, this is misleading at best. Industry reports claim 1020 giga-barrels of oil (gbo) in proven reserves. At current production of nearly 25 gbo, this is indeed enough oil for the next 40 years. However, consumption continues to rise at 2% per year (a doubling time of 35 years). Even if all 1020 gbo existed, we would be out of oil in much less than 40 years if demand continues to increase.
The situation is much more serious, however. In the first place, reserves are overestimated by about 200 gbo for a variety of complex reasons (mainly statistical misinterpretation and falsification by OPEC . . .
The authors conclude that the transition to an economy not based on conventional oil need not be traumatic. They base this assessment on the probability of cheap liquid fuels made from natural gas as well as safe nuclear power, cheaper renewable energy, and conservation. They urge that nations begin planning now for the decline in oil production. Their concluding statement:
The world is not running out of oil - at least not yet. What our society does face, and soon, is the end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all industrial nations depend.
This article leaves out a very important point made in the original Scientific American article. The authors had argued that gasolene prices in the USA are far too cheap if one considers their full cost -- including the cost to defend oil supplies from the Middle East. That would include the cost of the Gulf War ($3 billion?), among others (such as road building), which should be paid for in direct taxes at the pumps, not out of general tax revenue. Doing so would help to encourage the building of more nuclear power reactors, and their use in producing hydrogen to replace gasolene. See Nuclear Green, where that type of power is extolled (rightly) as the second safest (after natural gas) source of power, cheap and secure from foreign control, and the most pollution-free of all sources. France knows this, with 75% of its power being nuclear. Why do not Canada and the USA, with only 20%? Perhaps France wants to avoid being held hostage by the Islamist theocratic dictatorships of the Middle East!
Association of British Drivers: http://www.abd.org.uk/
http://www.car.driver.co.uk/flag.htm
TRAFFIC CALMING LINKS: http://www.durp.hawaii.edu/traffic_calming/html/calmlinks.html Karl Kim, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Urban and Regional Planning; Email: karlk@hawaii.edu. Cities and Towns. Organizations. Traffic Calming Design, Devices and Applications. Companies. Other views of Traffic Calming. Publications, Reviews, Articles, and other Media. Traffic Calming Links Lists/ Biblographies.
Association of British Drivers: http://www.abd.org.uk/ The Association of British Drivers. Last laugh page. Caption Competition. Photo: A Truvelo Speed Camera faces the wrath of an AH64 Apache Helicopter Gunship.
Here are some of my entries.
Apache 1 to Cash Extortion Centre: We've locked on to a speeding white van. If he doesn't stop and pay, do you want a missile up his backside -- or do we just blast off a tyre? -- Wayne Paulson, Ottawa, Canada
Apache 1 to Control: I think we've missed the turnoff to Baghdad. Are we still in the No-fly zone? -- Wayne Paulson, Ottawa, Canada
http://www.car.driver.co.uk/flag.htm
Alternative Traffic Signs: http://www.car.driver.co.uk/signs.htm The Alternative Traffic Sign Page. Alternative meanings for some familar British traffic signs, and a few new signs. Please note : use of this page as a study guide for the purposes of taking the driving test is not recommended.
Funny Photos - Things and Places: http://www.42.dropbear.id.au/images-things-cars.html Funny Photos - Cars.
Problems Associated With Traffic Calming Devices Summary: http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/texts/2_smary.htm
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - Citizens in Houston, Texas filed a complaint with HUD that gates installed as part of a calming project were used to segregate communities along racial and socio-economic lines. HUD found the City of Houston in violation of the civil rights of its citizens and ordered the gates removed.
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT - Citizens are threatening to file suit against the City of Portland, Maine to remove experimental mitigation devices. Funds received for the experimental project from the federal CMAQ Program (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality) were rescinded when it was shown that the humps and raised crossings increased emissions by 48% without taking into considerations the increased emissions from braking and acceleration caused by the devices. The State of Maine has been ordered under the federal Clean Air Act to show evidence of compliance in reducing pollutants. Section 113, "Federal Enforcement", states fines including imprisonment will be levied against entities responsible for knowingly increasing the release of pollutants into the air. . . . An Austrian study of vehicles driving on streets with speed humps measured an increase of emissions 10 times greater than vehicles on streets without humps
The Transport Research Laboratory, a research agency of the Department of Transportation in the United Kingdom conducted emissions tests on roads with speed humps and found the following:
Schemes with a 75 metre hump spacing ... showed increases in CO and HC of around 70-80% and 70-100% respectively, and an increase in CO2 of around 50-60%. NOx emissions were predicted to be about 0-20% lower after calming."
To calculate the possible effect of smoother driving after the installation of humps (without braking and acceleration) TRL measured the change in emissions associated with moving from a constant speed of 30 mph to a constant speed of 20 mph and found the following results:
CO and HC increased by 40-80%, CO2 by 30-40% and NOx by 20-30%.
VIOLATION OF THE ADA - A moratorium is presently in effect on speed humps in Berkeley, California because of emergency response concerns and because of complaints by the disabled community. The pain and injury caused to some disabled citizens by all deflection devices limits their access to public-rights-of-way. Title II of the ADA requires all new facilities made readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. It further states that all alterations to facilities must be accessible and usable to the maximum extent feasible.
The pain and discomfort slowing devices cause some disabled residents, makes roads physically and psychologically less accessible. A letter from the Commission on Disabilities, Berkeley, . . . to inform them of the problems humps cause disabled persons and to request they work with the federal DOT to develop standards for compliance for roadway access for the disabled. A lawsuit was filed against the City of Bethesda, MD by a disabled resident for placing speed humps on all streets of access to his home. A website addressing the concerns of the disabled with physical devices can be found at:
http://www.digitalthreads.com/rada/ (Road Access for Disabled Americans.)
LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS - In August 1998, a Florida judge ruled in favor of two residents of Sarasota who filed suit against the city for using devices for traffic control that are not approved traffic control devices in the U.S. DOT, MUTCD (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices). . . .
There are no specific requirements for signage for traffic calming devices. . . . Cities are required to keep their streets free of hazards. Devices can cause injury to drivers in some vehicles, traveling over the devices at posted speed limits. One legal department has expressed concern cities could be liable not only because of injury caused directly by a device, but for injury and damage incurred by actions made by drivers because of a device, such as swerving around them. Legal departments also express concern that cities could be held liable for personal injury or death because of emergency response delays caused by the devices.
CONFLICT - . . . Diversion of traffic to less traveled streets always accompanies an installation of devices, resulting in a change in the livability and the desirability of the property on the affected streets. Residents are often irate about the discomfort of the devices, the increased vehicle noise at the devices, the damage to their vehicles and the visual pollution of the signage and pavement markings needed to warn drivers of the devices. Enduring angst and divisiveness often remains in the neighborhood . . .
Traffic Calming - Liability: http://www.cwdnet.com/qlc/tc_textliability02.htm Report #2 Excerpted from: Possible Neighborhood Traffic Calming Methods Report To Council 97-040 Liability Exposure Implications Sunnyvale, CA.
Many Stage 2 traffic calming actions (speed humps, traffic circles, etc.) can also result in varying degrees of liability exposure to the City. Since most Stage 2 actions have some negative impacts . . . there is the potential for increased liability exposure as a result of any of these negative consequences. . . . the potential exposure which would result from the City deciding against installation of a "justified" traffic calming action or resulting from implementation of an action.
If the City were to establish a traffic calming program . . . there is the potential for liability exposure if the City decides not to implement traffic calming actions. It is possible that a court could decide that the City is liable because it did not take traffic calming steps in attempts to correct a known traffic problem. This type of liability exposure is not uncommon related to actions such as the installation of traffic signals . . . where the Federal and State governments have established criteria (warrants) for their use. However, neither the Federal nor State governments have created or adopted criteria or warrants related the types of traffic calming actions described in this report. Staff is not aware of any adverse court decision based upon failure of a jurisdiction to implement these types of traffic calming actions.
Staff believes the most likely source of increased liability exposure would be that resulting from City implementation of a traffic calming action. This exposure would probably stem from two general categories of negative impacts. The first would be liability which might arise from the negative impact to emergency vehicle response times. . . . Delay of emergency response could result in a civil action by an injured party from allegations that the emergency vehicle reponse was delayed by traffic calming devices. . . .
traffic calming devices themselves might result in damage or injury. Certainly if a traffic calming device were not properly designed with all appropriate lighting, signing and pavement markings, liability exposure could result. But there is also potential liability from properly designed and installed traffic calming actions. If the device itself causes driver behavior which results in damage to property or injury, the City could potentially be held liable. For instance, if a driver manuevered in order to avoid a traffic calming device and as a result struck a parked car, pedestrian, cyclist, etc., there is the potential for City liability exposure. . . .
Potential liability exposure for the City is compounded by the "doctrine of joint and several liability". The doctrine of joint and several liability separates damages into two categories: 1) economic or specialy damages such as wage loss, medical expense, rehabilitation costs, etc.; 2) pain and suffering damages.
It is important to understand how these two categories are treated very differently under existing law. . . .
See also humps were traffic calming devices, not control devices and Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and a lawsuit filed by a disabled man.
NewsLetter: http://doralvillage.com/NewsLetter.htm . . . Caution: Speed Bumps are here. Doral Village, Fla. The Village Fathers have decided to install "road hazards" -- speed bumps, to combat a non-existing speeding problem. Scroll down about 45% of the page to find the following:
The State of Texas does not recognize speed bumps an official traffic control device. This decision is based on various studies which have all raised concern about the potential dangers of speed bumps. State and Local Governments can be held liable for injuries caused by speed bumps. For these reasons, the City of Missouri City does not use speed bumps on public streets.
See also Photo of dangerous speed bump: lawsuit pending?
Ottawa Ontario, Canada
Kent St. traffic calming: http://www.carleton.ca/ctown/archiv/jan2601/front3.htm Kent St. traffic calming causes chaos. By Robin Thorneycroft. With winter hitting Kent Street’s $600,000 traffic-calming project, the changes are creating as much confusion as calm.
Small sidewalk extensions have
been erected at a number of intersections to narrow Kent Street
and shift traffic side to side. The lateral shifts cause traffic
to zigzag down the street from Flora to MacLaren. Traffic begins
on one side of the street, and by the next intersection it is
shifted to the other side.
The project, completed in November, aims to improve the
streetscape for residents and to slow down traffic.
It is part of a pilot program to lower speeds to posted limits
throughout the Centretown area. . . .
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY: http://www.city.ottawa.on.ca/calendar/ottawa/archives/rmoc/Regional_Council/09Sep98/9septrcm.htm THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON COUNCIL MINUTES . . .
MOTION NO. 216 Moved by Councillor W. Stewart, Seconded by Councillor R. Cantin
WHEREAS the Ottawa Fire Services has expressed concern about the number of speed humps on Lyon Street and Kirkwood Avenue, because they delay response times, cause mechanical damage to vehicles and personal injury to firefighters; and
WHEREAS the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Ambulance Service has concerns about the speed humps on Lyon Street on Kirkwood because they will have an adverse effect on response times, damage ambulances and pose the possibility of personal and third party injury; and
WHEREAS the Regional Police Service has concerns with vertical measures on Kirkwood Avenue because of public safety; and
WHEREAS the Regional Transportation Department does not support vertical measures such as speed humps on major arterials and have not had an opportunity to explore the impact of speed humps on primary response routes; and
WHEREAS public consultation to date has resulted in an unprecedented response with the overwhelming majority of residents of the affected area protesting these measures, and both the Somerset Heights BIA and the Westboro BIA opposed to traffic-calming;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Vertical Traffic Calming Measures on Kirkwood and Lyon Street be deferred until the Department has worked with emergency services to review the potential impact on primary response routes, reporting back in the spring of 1999.
"LOST" on a division of 11 Nays to 7 Yeas . . .
The Birth of Big Brother: http://members.tripod.com/~Cybertrucker/polstate.htm . . . © Copyright 1999 Chris Lamb. They're watching you. But who's watching them? . . . Whether they're driving dangerously or not, the speed camera will report every driver who exceeds the speed limit. Speed limits, whether justified or not, can now be totally enforced. Drivers can now be terrorised into obeying the law, no matter how bad the law is. No more "policing by consent", now it's "YOU WILL OBEY"! And, of course, every time the camera flashes the driver pays another £40 in tax. No wonder the bureaucrats like cameras! . . .
New sound damping technology in the testing phase in Switzerland may reduce the noise caused by train wheels. According to the research done by the Bern municipal transport services, Sulzer Metco and the Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne have produced a ferric-chromium aluminum alloy spray which, when applied to train wheels and followed by heat treatment, increases the flexibility of certain properties within the metal compound, which in turn allows more energy to be released as heat, thereby increasing the sound damping capacity. The spray is still in the testing phase and may be useful in reducing noise in other industrial sectors. Financial Times, 17 January 1997 by Vanessa Houlder, as reported by nonoise.org.
Lords Hansard text for 16 Nov 2000 (201116-02): http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo001116/text/01116-02.htmTraffic Calming Measures: Effects on Ambulances
Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost to the London Ambulance Service of the wear and tear caused by the traffic calming measures now in place in many London streets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, it is not possible to identify the specific cost of repairs to the potential wear and tear caused by traffic calming measures. There may be some impact on the
16 Nov 2000 : Column 345
London Ambulance Service, but that needs to be seen within the context of a drive to reduce both the frequency and severity of traffic accidents, with clear benefits to the public and the health service as a whole.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not opposed to traffic calming measures in principle, but is it not self-evident that these bumps in the road, some of which are very severe, will cause considerable additional wear and tear to ambulances and other vehicles, not to mention discomfort to the unfortunate patients inside them? Therefore, is it not a good idea to look again at the extent to which these measures are put in place, particularly the height to which they are built?
they are used to slow traffic to 20 mph or less they result in a 60 per cent reduction in accidents. That has a beneficial impact on the health service as a whole. Local authorities are required to consult ambulance services when they propose to install road humps. I believe that the best approach to this issue is to encourage the closest engagement between ambulance services and local authorities so that the benefits of road humps, where appropriate, are effected and issues which concern ambulance services--for example, the impact of road humps on their ability to respond to 999 calls--are very much considered.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I share the admiration for the London Ambulance Service, but if the DETR's assessment of the cost of one road death as being in excess of £1 million is accurate, does my noble friend agree that that puts into context the more marginal cost of the damage to ambulances from road humps?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is right. If road humps reduce the number of people who are injured or killed as a result of road accidents, that must be a gain for society as a whole. Equally, I do not believe that we can overlook the impact which road humps can sometimes have on the ability of ambulances to respond to emergencies. For that reason, I believe that the best approach is to have close consultation and discussion between ambulance services and local authorities when the latter wish to install road humps.
Photo of dangerous speed bump: lawsuit pending?
NewsLetter: http://doralvillage.com/NewsLetter.htm . . . Caution: Speed Bumps are here. Doral Village, Fla. The Village Fathers have decided to install "road hazards" -- speed bumps, to combat a non-existing speeding problem. Apparently the Village Fathers did little research before deciding to install these hazards. A twisted perception of a speeding problem and a need to satisfy one's own opinion at all others expense appears to be the actual problem.
Scroll down about 70% of the page to see the incriminating photo. I hope that the biker sues the village and wins big-time! If one can't convince officials using logic and history, a legal sledge hammer is a last resort, but a good one! It takes about $4,000 to put in a speed bump. Would a $1,000,000 lawsuit take one out? For this reason alone, several cities have stopped adding them.
The fathers of the village came close to a major lawsuit and have placed themselves in a position to cause injury. A village resident was bike riding one afternoon and hit this well hidden bump. What do you think was in their mind when they placed a hazard in this well hidden location?
Apparently, and not surprisingly, nothing.
I will bet the people providing liability insurance in the park have not approved this installation and will not be held liable for covering injuries resulting from this well placed hidden road hazard.
This site includes several links to informed sites.
Photo of a car that is not speed-bump compatible!
NewsLetter: http://doralvillage.com/NewsLetter.htm . . . Caution: Speed Bumps are here. Doral Village, Fla. The Village Fathers have decided to install "road hazards" -- speed bumps, to combat a non-existing speeding problem. Scroll down about 22% of the page to see the photo. This is a mistaken entry. I shall try to find the proper address to replace the above URL. Sorry about that.
Speed Humps: http://www.car.driver.co.uk/humps.htm Speed Humps - A public menace. Speed humps are pointless. Depending upon the vehicle and the hump design, going over a hump at a higher speed may cause less discomfort than a lower speed. A Police officer from Humberside (or should that be Humperside!) boasted that his new Subaru Impreza patrol car could take speed humps at 70 mph! There is no safety benefit whatsoever in slowing to the absurdly low speed necessary to negotiate humps with minimum discomfort. . . . and many more disadvantages, including more noise and pollution, risk of injury, . . .
See also Speed limiters kill.
Main Menu: http://members.tripod.com/~Cybertrucker/main.htm Cybertrucker's World. Cybertrucker is an active member of the Association of British Drivers. Mostly contra speed limiters for trucks, the 'nasty' regulations of the European Union, and comments on the myth that speeding causes accidents!
See the amusing collection of Alternative Speed Camera Signs.
See also Disabled people and Emergency-service response.
NewsLetter: http://doralvillage.com/NewsLetter.htm . . . Caution: Speed Bumps are here. Doral Village, Fla. The Village Fathers have decided to install "road hazards" -- speed bumps, to combat a non-existing speeding problem. Scroll down about 35% of the page to find thr following:
During the 11 June 1996 City Council Study Session for Boulder's neighborhood traffic mitigation program (NTMP), several members requested additional quantitative information so that they could better understand the issues. . . . data that would allow a comparison of the impacts of delayed emergency response time versus the putative increases in neighborhood safety.
Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA, or simply CA) is the most common critical emergency needing prompt intervention. It strikes more than 350,000 people a year in the U. S. ("Sudden Cardiac Arrest", a Communicore publication). Scaled to Boulder, this indicates roughly 140 SCAs per year. About 90% of those treated within two minutes survive; while only about 10% survive if treated after 6 minutes.
Ottawa, with its socialized medical system, has an average response time of about 9 to 11 minutes! Good luck! And we are still adding more speed bumps in some areas, and removing others -- at a removal cost of $147,000 in the western area of Ottawa! We obviously need a good lawsuit to wake up City Council!
No Speed Bumps!: http://www.geocities.com/nbumps/orlandow.html The Orlando Weekl. Speed trapped.
Rise and fall: As Orange County prepares to spend $500,000 to add speed humps, a car moves slowly over one on Lake Price Drive (photo: Charity) By Jeffrey C. Billman. Published 8/16/00. . . .
"It was my first ride in a helicopter, and I didn't even know it," says Peggy, a thin, gray-haired woman recalling the day she was airlifted from her east Orange County subdivision after neighbors found her unconscious in the street.No one knows what happened to Peggy on May 24; the woman, . . . only remembers doing what she always does: taking an early-morning stroll . . . Some neighbors think it was a hit-and-run; the fire-rescue report says it was a fall. Either way, an emergency response was required.The official story is that Peggy's injuries precluded an ambulance ride. But her neighbors think it went down differently. . .
Along a half mile of Lake Price Drive, travelers encounter nine so-called speed humps -- which, the neighbors say, the paramedics didn't want to drive over with Peggy in back. . . . Fire Rescue officials say that's not the case, that Peggy would have been airlifted no matter where she fell. . . . It is accepted, however, that speed humps do slow emergency vehicles, be it ambulances or fire trucks, and Regency Park residents fear those delays may end up costing lives. They point to a letter written last month by an Orange County Fire and Rescue captain that said an ambulance took a "possibly longer" route to avoid the humps.What if the situation is life threatening? they ask.The debate takes added importance with Orange County preparing to spend $500,000 . . . installing still more humps and other traffic-calming devices. . . . officials say that among neighborhood associations, the humps are wildly popular.Elsewhere . . . , however, such enthusiasm has been undermined by the realities. Neighborhood associations may like them, but almost everyone else hates them -- including many fire departments. Lawsuits and angry protests have followed.In fact, the humps may be inherently illegal. And the most damning analysis suggests they may be responsible for the deaths of far more people than they will ever save. Orange County jumped on the humps in 1994, joining a trend that began sweeping the country in the late 1980s. The Orange County Commission voted then to allow the placement of speed humps in residential areas. "Speed humps," according to the county's public-works department, "are used as an effective tool in relieving speeding problems found within a neighborhood."Before humps can be installed -- a process that requires two-thirds of adjacent homeowners to agree to a one-time tax that offsets the $1,400-per-hump cost** -- the road has to meet certain criteria. . . .
**$4,000 each in another community.
many communities that installed humps have run into serious problems.First, there's a legitimate concern that speed humps are illegal. Here's why: All traffic-control devices, such as stop signs and red lights, must be drawn from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices -- and speed humps are nowhere to be found therein. In Sarasota, that gave ammunition to two residents who felt that the city's hump program was simply a pain in the ass. They sued. The city argued that the humps were traffic calming devices, not control devices; the significant legal distinction held that control devices give messages, while calming devices do not.The circuit court disagreed, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. "How you classify [control or calming] depends on the purpose [of the devices]," says plaintiff's attorney Michael Hartenstine. "If the purpose is to control and influence traffic speed and volume, then it's traffic control." An appeals court reversed the decision -- not because the circuit judge was wrong, the court said, but because the two residents could not prove they had the rightful standing to bring the lawsuit. (They didn't actually live on a street with humps.) . . .
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is another possible issue. Under the ADA, the disabled are ensured access to government "facilities" -- including public roads -- "safely, independently and without humiliation," says Emily Wilcox, an advocate for the disabled in Berkeley, Calif. Many disabled groups insist the humps are a barrier to that access.Berkeley's speed-hump program in particular elicited much protest from the disabled community. "Those of us having problems with speed humps," says Wilcox, "have painful, degenerative disabilities." Riding in a vehicle as it travels over the humps, even at speeds below the posted limit, causes her long-lasting pain and injury, she says.Rick Hall of Austin, Texas, is on the front line in the speed-hump fight. He's helped to set up an Internet network for about 15 anti-hump groups (www.io.com/~bumper/ada.htm). The humps, he says, block disabled people's access to roads, and that's illegal. "We want to see some reform," Hall says, "not an end to all traffic calming."Reform may be inevitable. Already, a lawsuit filed by a disabled man in Bethesda, Md., alleges that city's speed humps blocked his access to his home. And in Berkeley, an internal city staff memo expressed concern that traffic calming did indeed violate the ADA. . . .
But the most immediate problem -- in terms of both litigation and public concern -- is the safety issue. Put simply: Does the slower traffic on humped streets save more lives than slowing ambulances and fire trucks will cost? That's the issue over which fire-rescue departments across the country have butted heads with traffic engineers, many of whom do not see the slower response time as a major issue.The Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal studied the impact that humps had on emergency vehicles in Portland, Ore. "The bottom line -- when properly designed, they had minimal delay or effect," says American Public Works Association spokesman John MacMullen.But what's minimal? The Journal article, published in August 1997, concluded that each hump delays traffic up to 9.2 seconds. Along the nine humps on Lake Price Drive in Orange County, that could mean a delay of up to 82.8 seconds -- almost a minute and a half, each way. If paramedics deem it unsafe to ferry a patient across the humps for whatever reason, there really is no alternate route they can take without going several minutes out of their way.In Regency Park, that fact was made clear after a July 3 auto accident at Lake Price Drive and Tanner Road. In a follow-up letter to Syl Lafata, president of the homeowners association, acting Orange County Fire and Rescue Capt. Matt McGrew wrote that a rescue squad had to "slow to approximately 15 mph to negotiate safely through this area."He continued: "I can say that the route taken to the hospital, although possibly longer, was determined specifically to avoid traveling back over those nine speed bumps. In summary, I can conclude that these speed bumps, although not completely hindering us from providing our service, do affect our response times and travel considerations when servicing this area."In Berkeley, the fire department joined with disabled groups, and in 1995, the city imposed a moratorium on humps. But officially, Orange County Fire and Rescue doesn't see a problem, at least not one worth fighting over. . . .
. . . 259-page master's thesis recently written by Austin, Texas, Assistant Fire Chief Les Bunte. In "Traffic Calming Programs and Emergency Response: A Competition of Two Public Goods," the 27-year firefighting veteran makes a startling observation. Using a detailed formula developed by Boulder, Colo., scientist Ray Bowman, Bunte determined that in Austin, at least 37 people would die because of slower emergency-response time for every one life saved by slower traffic. Since Bunte took into account only deaths from sudden cardiac arrest -- and not from delayed fire response or any other condition -- that number could be higher.Furthermore, Bunte points out that most pedestrian deaths don't occur on residential streets. They occur near busy intersections, and many times involve drunk pedestrians. "Often the traffic danger within a neighborhood," Bunte writes, "is generally a perceived danger [Bunte's italics] by the residents, rather than an established one. Residents often convey an exaggerated depiction of the problem." . . .
See calming devices are counterproductive to safety and Emergency-service response.
traffic: http://hometown.aol.com/partp1647/traffic.htm A traffic engineer provides detailed examples and photos of traffic calming techniques used in the U.K. and the USA.
Traffic Calming - FHWA: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tcalm/ United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. The term "traffic calming" is often described as the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use and improve conditions for nonmotorized street users. However, the term "traffic calming" also applies to a number of transportation techniques developed to educate the public and provide awareness to unsafe driver behavior. . . . Useful definitions, descriptions of techniques, and links.
Links to Traffic Calming Programs - Traffic Calming - FHWA: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tcalm/part3.htm United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration. Examples of and variations of the term "traffic calming" include the street calming in Fort Wayne, "neighborhood traffic management" in Boulder and Santa Fe, "neighborhood traffic control" in Seattle, and "traffic abatement" in Sarasota, FL. This page is dedicated to all the known electronically publicized websites. Click on the following web addresses. Many USA links, and Ottawa, Vancouver.
Traffic Calming - Pensacola Beach: http://www.pbrla.com/trafficcalm.html . . . Below, links to the latest research, case studies, and ideas of the transportation planners who enable us to come and go. . . .
Go Home. ___ Go to Traffic-calming page contents near top.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca