Give Ickleford a fair and proper consultation on Road Humps Ickleford is not an Island! Parish Council decisions impact the wider community so we want to hear protests from anyone affected not just Ickleford residents

Home What were the real speeds BEFORE the humps? Were road humps required for the crossing? Elections About Us Petition Comments News Meeting Notes Ickleford Road Accidents Ickleford Speed Analysis Hump Locations Interesting Links Survey Results Road Hump Myths Your money on “Safety” How YOU can stop humps Reporting Potholes etc... Download Posters, Petitions, & Leaflets Facebook & Useful Contacts Photos Terms, Privacy & Copyright

Below are unedited comments from people who have signed the petition - most recent first

• Useless, ineffective, and ugly. One discreetly placed speed camera would do the job. I do not understand this obsession with road furniture.
• Crossing by school and near shop good idea,however far to many humps proposed for the size of the village. I feel that two speed cameras would be far more cost effective and appropriate. Also damage to emergency vehicles and slower response times. Buses will damage the humps, as will the large lorry's.
• raised crossing at school necessary.crossing at Bedford Road end of Turnpike MUCH needed but not even considered.All other bumps-excessive in number and probably ineffective.
• This is damaging to cars and only encourages those with fuel-guzzling 4x4 vehicles to race around! Bad for the environment because of the slowing down and acceleration involved. Waste of money when there are more pressing problems on the highways, eg. islands to allow pedestrians to cross safely at junctions.
• Road humps cost lives because they slow down ambulances!
• Spoils the village - damages cars
• some form of traffic calming should be in place. or reducing the speed limit to 20mph, speed cameras, maybe?
• If they need to do something use traffic calming where you have to give way to the on coming traffic, or better still just fill the holes up around Hitchin and stop wasting money they can't spend quick enough!!!!
• I DRIVE THROUGH ICKLEFORD EVERY DAY (AT LESS THAN 30 MPH) AND HAVE NEVER FOUND TRAFFIC SPEEDING. I FEEL THAT ROAD HUMPS ARE UNNECESSARY, CAUSE DISCOMFORT FOR MOTORISTS, DO NOT DELIVER GREATER PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS AND WOULD SPOIL THE CHARM OF ICKLEFORD ITSELF. IF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ARE TRULY THOUGHT TO BE NECESSARY THEN THERE ARE OTHER, MORE EFFECTIVE MEASURES THAT CAN BE EMPLOYED.
• As per my letter published in the Comet. I am not a resident of Ickleford but I have read the correspondence on the subject of the planned speed humps with great interest. I am not opposed to traffic calming but I do have a big problem with speed humps. Whilst many valid objections have been put forward, including the fact that they do not deter those determined to exceed sensible speeds in urban areas and the potential damage to vehicles, it is sad that yet again, in a case such as this, no-one has mentioned the effect on those who suffer from severe back problems or those recovering from bone fractures especially for example a broken collar bone. As someone who has had serious back problems for many years it is impossible to travel over speed humps at any speed without suffering severe discomfort and enhanced levels of pain. In fact for most types of speed hump the pain is worst if a vehicle slows to below 10mph to negotiate these. The consequence of the proliferation in these so called traffic calming measures is in effect to create no-go areas for those already disadvantaged by health problems. In my view this is in effect a form of discrimination against the partially disabled. But then who cares?
• Please don't spoil my lovely village. I have lived here for over 80 years & love it so much.
• Sorry that I originally voted in favour of the humps, but the way the survey had been structured, there were no other alternatives proposed. The survey was misleading.
• I have a low vehicle and I am concerned about the damage to my cars exhaust and suspension, and more importantly my health. Living in the village I have no option but to drive over them to get to Hitchin. The money would be better spent resurfacing Arlsey New Road, as trip to Letchworth can wreck your tyres. I pity the residents that will have these ramps put outside their houses, I would'nt like it.
• I am concerned that my comments on the consultation could have been interpreted as a yes because I said I would support any traffic calming near the school but no to any humps - was this a yes or a no? Also I am very concerned that motorists will speed up having been frustrated in the village and make it very dangerous outside my house and up the road towards Letchworth. The other day a driver overtook three cars near Caldwell Farm and nearly crashed head on into me when I was returning home. In 11 years of living here I have never experienced anything like it. I think we will see more of that. Humps will not stop these type of drivers and only make them angrier once they reach the bend near Ickleford stables.
• I cannot understand why speed bumps are thought to be necessary in the areas proposed. It is an obsession with controlling speed,not improving the standard of driving that leads to decisions like this. Do areas that have speed bumps installed actually see their accident rate go down, even though speeds might have been reduced. I doubt it because accidents are caused by poor driving, not by being 5 mph over some limit. Better driver education and tougher tests are what is needed.
• When was there last an accident due to fast traffic?
• I opposed it when it was first mentioned obviously my views did not count
• I was against it when they where first discussed and i am still against it
• Who pays for the damage to my car then? Not the parish council i know
• I am an occasional visitor to Ickleford and I have never seen any cars speeding through the village or anywhere near the school. Installing road humps is an unnecessary expense being incurred by the council and the public who pay its taxes. I'm sure the money could be better spent elsewhere especially in the current economic climate and especially as the accident rate in Ickleford does not warrant installation of speed humps.
• Why do we need a Parish Council?
• I am not a driver, but as a passenger I find road humps make a journey very uncomfortable.
• An ill thought out plan that seems to have been foisted upon us.
• Why was my remarks on the Parish Council Questionnaire ignored?!
• I feel more ‘humps’ could cause more accidents & decided wear & tear on cars - they are a waste of time & money.
• I am now paying £66.19 pa (3.9% increase) for the Parish Council. After their incompetent handling of this situation I think they are not worth 66 pence. I say chuck them all out.
• How about road pinching?
• I do not agree with the proposed speed humps planned for Ickleford. I travel through the village on a regular basis and feel it would spoil the village, and it would do very little to improve your situation. I feel the warning reminder as you enter Ickleford from Arlesey very good and always makes me check my speed Could you not have more of those at the other end of the village.
• Road humps damage vehicles and do not slow the drivers who are the most frequent offenders. Following this recent hard winter it is now possible to see potholes on road humps as well as in between, making the roads even rougher!
• It is high time that someone challenged the misleading base assumptions that lead to these menaces. The noise and additional exhaust polution created by humps is never given a mention!
• I drive through Ickleford 4 times every day of the week and rarely see a speeding driver. Most drivers are careful and considerate. A pelican crossing with a hump on either side is more than adequate. Money is better spent on mending the pot holes and improving pedestrian and horse safety under the rail bridge
• Speed humps are destructive to the frame, both human and automotive. Consider the discomfort or possible fatal results of installed speed humps on a spinal injury being conveyed to hospital. The increase in wear to vehicle suspension and steering components increases the possibility of more 'defective' vehicles on the roads. Speed humps increase levels of noise and pollution; distract drivers attention that should be concentrated on moving hazards like other road users; and cause increases in maintenance costs. The London Borough of Barnet in an ongoing plan to remove theirs has had accidents reduce, and has been largely welcomed by the community, with emergency response times improved. There is no case for introducing speed humps anywhere, and every case to campaign for their removal everywhere.
• I sincerely hope that fire appliances and ambulances do not have to negotiate this proposed obstacle course or there will be a lot of unnecessary casualties.
• From my experience of living in the village I don't think speeding traffic is a problem. Yes, there's the odd idiot who flashes through later at night but not enough to justify all these speed bumps.
  
  I am really concerned that the speed bumps will make the village noisier as lorries rattle over the bumps. My fears seems to be be confirmed by the reports you already have of disturbed sleep for the residents who live near the new crossing.
  
  I am also concerned that traffic will take longer to travel through the village and thus increase the traffic fumes.
  
  I have read some of the reports about the potential damage these humps cause to cars and wonder about that too.
  
  I suspect the Parish Council wanted to be seen to be doing something to so they could show the village of the year judges that they had done something.
• My house is directly in line with the new crossing which I think is more dangerous than what was there before. I have already seen a young person dash across the crossing behind a car. There is no longer a stop in the middle of the road for people to check both ways. Speed humps are not the way forward - these changes do not seem to have been wisely thought through or researched adequately. STOP NOW and give this whole plan more thought PLEASE.
• The main problem with speed humps is that you are concentrating on lining your car up so you can go over the humps at a reasonable speed without too much of a jolt to the suspension. This means you are not looking for the hazards, such a a child dashing into the road. I think such humps could increase the possibility of an accident and not decrease it.
• The road through Ickleford is NOT a rat run. It is a busy minor road linking areas of northern Hitchin to Arlesey, Stotfold, northern Letchworth and Baldock. I myself do volunteer driving for the Lister Hospital and frequently need to drive through Ickleford. I have yet to notice any speeding vehicles.
  
  These humps do not slow down white van men, mini-buses etc, yet the private motorist can have serious damage caused to the inner edges of their tyres, which may only be noticed when they suffer a blowout at speed on a motorway - the Parish Council will never know what they have caused! These humps are also a distraction - it's bad enough having to weave around pot holes (one has just cost me £230 for a new tyre) without having to weave around these humps and avoid other road users, parked vehicles etc.
  
  Parish Councillors, please have the courage to halt this programme before it's too late - there are plenty of other alternatives. When other councils are removing their humps, why is it necessary to carry on installing these monstrosities.
• Speed bumps are not necessary, repairing pot holes is!
• I agree that the survey undertaken many months ago was very misleading and as importantly, did not give alternative options. It was very much a case of ‘take it or leave it’. It was a highly inappropriate way to seek support to a matter as important as speed humps. My personal view is that a few speed cameras would do a far more effective job of controlling speed - van and larger vehicle drivers care very little about driving over speed humps at speeds in excess of 30mph yet they would be be deterred from doing so by a speed camera. The ridiculous bollards in the road (that I had understood would be removed if speed humps installed) are a total waste of time and serve absolutely no use whatsoever. I think it is disgraceful that the council can spend money on the work in Ickleford when the majoroty of roads in the town require extensive work to bring them to a standard fit to drive on. I really question what my council tax is used for because it seems to be squandred unecessarily on ridiculous schemes that add no value.
• The raised crossing is a special for Ickleford as you may note that in Old Hale Way there is a crossing with lights and a Crossing Patrol during school useage times. WE get a raised hump (and Crossing Patrol in school times) to annoy everybody who drives in the village on every journey. If we have a Crossing Patrol WHY do we need a raised hump? What is the additional benefit?
• Hi. There was a case in Manchester of a police van on a call that hit a speed hump and went into a garden missing people who were there (ed. see www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1031773_bystanders_police_van_horror). A situation which is caused by such useless lumps of tarmac. I have not seen any official report on the outcome to date but this happened many months ago and was reported in the ABD magazine. I believe there were some injuries to those in the vehicle. It is well known that years ago those in office claimed that ANYTHING on a road was a hazard and now we have more hazards with speed humps,centre bollards, and chicanes etc all in the name of road safety. Regards, and best of luck in your attempt to bring about some common sense.
• Provided the Police perform their responsibilities correctly then by the law of probability speeding motorists will eventually be caught and penalised with points, fines, and increased insurance. If they refuse to change their habits they will continue to get caught and eventually lose their driving licence. Why are the Parish Council punishing the majority of law abiding safe drivers?
• Why doesn't the council spend the money making it safer for pedestrians to get through the railway bridge at the north end of the village? It is really dangerous. I thought there was going to be a crossing put in???
  
  Thanks for the good work :-)
• Text book simple design from the Herts Highways contractor with no interest in the village, no vision and no investigative skills to discover how other authorities solved their problems. The correct answer from the Parish Council should have been ‘If this is the best you can do - try harder’ NOT ‘OK we will take what ever you offer so that we do not lose the money allocated’.
• As a frequent visitor to Ickleford I've never noticed any excess speed through the village. Narrowness as well as parked cars in Turnpike Lane slows traffic down as does the mini roundabout by the pubs. From the Arlesey direction the road is narrow and twisty anyway but an additional chicane giving priority flow from the village or an illuminated warning sign would suffice. I drive through Codicote regularly and the constantly parked cars slow traffic down. I am very much in favour of the crossing but humps are an unimaginative sledgehammer to crack a nut in Ickleford.
• will still be a rat run, humps are not going to slow the traffic down, just make the boy races more idiots
• My daughter and son both live in Ickleford and i think it would be such a shame and a pain to put speed bumps through the village. so not needed, what a waste of money.
• I definately do not agree to the speed humps through our lovely village, totally unnecessary and a detriment to ambulance and fire engines if they need to come through!!!. a total waste of time and money, why not put the money towards widening the bridge near bowmans and repairing he roads???
• Although I do not live in the village of Ickleford, all my family do. I have to travel through the village 4 times EVERY day and these speed humps will affect me as much as anybody living in the village. Given the experience of having to travel over speed humps along Whitehill and down past the girsl school I completely oppose these things ruining my car as well the village!
• It was disgusting to combine the option of the school crossing with the speed bumps in the survey. The humped school crossing is sufficient to kerb the speed of motorists now and we residents don't want to risk damaging our suspension when we have no means of avoiding the affected roads.
• I attended the meeting on 8 October 2008. I was one of the many against speed humps. I do not believe they will slow down those who speed.
• BY TAKING THE SHORTEST ROUTE(TO SAVE ON PETROL ETC) FROM WHERE I LIVE IN HOLWELL TO WHERE I WORK IN LETCHWORTH I WILL HAVE TO DRIVE OVER 22 ROAD HUMPS IN TOTAL IF THESE 11 ROAD HUMPS GET THE GO AHEAD!
• I agree with other residents that we should preserve Ickleford's character, we're being pushed into accepting road humps - so unsuitable for our beautiful village. Why not a 20 mile per hour speed limit with suitable road signs or pinch points similar to those in Little Wymondley?
• If cars parked on the road outside he village shop instead of ramping up the dropped pavement then a natural speed restriction would occur. I know because I do it! Also if you look at Codicote you'll see you can't speed through there because the cars park where they should. I say no to hump yes to parking legally, spend the money on filling in the dropped pavement outside the shop.
• They are more of a hazard than any safety feature and are a blite on the roads. The problem in road safety being that the police are negating their responsibility to police the roads.
• I fully support the crossing by the school, & agree that some traffic calming measures through the village are perhaps needed. However, I think the number of humps are excessive, & alternative means looked at more fully eg speed cameras .Having driven extensively around the counttry I see similar villages with more enviromentaly friendly & better suited systems
• Speed bumps not needed, parked cars create a natural chicane, slowing traffic. Crossing at school, perfect, now a crossing is needed at Bedford Rd end of Turnpike Lane, very dangerous for children and elderly. Something to keep lorries from passing right through the village would be most welcome too.
• what is happening to our beautful quite pretty village i've lived here all my life it consists of signs pot holes humps cracks graveyards barbwire we need some form of speed carming measures but not speed bumps it will cost more money to maintain these let alone all the things that need putting right
• No to speed humps...but don't mention the C-word. In my view chicanes are even worse than humps -- disrupting traffic and encouraging extra revving, braking and even speeding. With Ickleford's traffic volumes, they would be a disaster.
• I have friends in the village which i visit regularly. Bumps will spoil the village and ruin cars. we have many bumps where I live and I find exhausts cracking after only seven months from new and suspension problems that I never used to get before the bumps, they create noise when outside your house and cause large vehicles to wake you up at all hours of the night.
• The Ickleford Parish Plan has not been conducted fairly, as the wishes of the majority have not been met. The figures the Parish Council Chairman Mr Philip Crowe published in the Comet this week are a joke! The two figures given, 67% and 63% of the 59.6% of households who responded, certainly do NOT make a two to one in favour! so back to school Mr Crowe and get your abacus out!
  
  The eleven speed humps are excessive and not necessary in such great numbers to slow the traffic through Ickleford. Another crossing at the top end of Turnpike Lane [with a raised area on the crossing] is a necessity for villagers who use the buses into town. It would have served also as a traffic calmer!
  
  In addition, I found singling out ‘Pixies Flower Shop’ for negative mention [as if she should be grateful she was allowed to put up a sign] a distastful comment and one perhaps Mr Crowe should have been kept to himself! To make one persons view so public, must have been extremely bad judgement, on his part.
  
  Please delay the laying of these humps for further discussions.
• I agree with what has been said regarding the number of speed humps in our village of Ickleford. It is absurd to lay so many in such a small village. In addition the number of new lamp posts errected adjacent to the old ones [which still seem in good condion to me] are a complete waste of money.
• I am not sure that I want any but definitely nowhere near 11.
• a stupid idea planning so many humps, i agree we need control but not daftness
• i think this a case of over reaction, and not enough thought given to the proper way to control traffic we really do not need so many humps especially the ones that are miss designed!
• perhaps it is time that this Parish Council was changed, perhaps more new and young blood is needed? If the elections are due in May perhaps some of you out there should stand against the existing members?
• When speed humps were first considered in the early 90's, I was working for Hertfordshire County Council Highways Department. At the time, they were being seen as the be all and end all of traffic calming, the answer to the maidens prayer. However, over the years and along with other calming schemes I am not convinced that any of them totally work. There was a scheme to calm traffic in Codicote and the locals did not want it. So on the day it started they all blocked the footway in the vicinity of the calming. This resulted in the works finally being abandoned. Not wishing to incite anarchy, perhaps a few , or many bodies on the steets on the day that they start, along with this petition may help. Lets make them all think again before we are lumbered with these humps.
• another example of Ipc's half baked and half truthed hash ups , de select the lot of them, there are none so deaf as those who wont listen who made an expense claim for the survey no one took any notice of .
• I agree that the speed through Ickleford should be reduced but NOT with so many speed humps.It would be like a roller coaster manoeuvring round them. When the bollard, in the centre of the road outside the school was in place I have seen cars speeding round the wrong side, late at night. So I agree something has to be done such as 20mph with flashing road signs.
• Woken many times now by lorrys clattering over the new raised crossing. As for 11 speed humps....clatter problem multiplied 11 times. OMG! As for the flashing lights...why? They serve no purpose whatsoever.
• 11 speed bumps in the village is a sledge hammer to crack a nut. If we must have bumps to slow down the odd lunatic driver let's keep it in proportion. One at each end of the village plus the new zebra crossing is plenty.
• I was woken at about 5:30am this morning by a lorry clattering over the raised zebra crossing that has already been installed by the school. I have lived here for over 25 years and can't recall ever being woken by traffic noise previously. Traffic humps through the village will definitely increase the traffic noise and spoil the appearance of the village.
  
  I voiced my opposition to the proposal at the Parish Council AGM and voted against the proposal in the ballot. I think that speed humps have the most adverse effects on the people that they are intended to protect ie. the residents, and that the number of humps in the plan is absurd. I also believe that it will encourage far more traffic to divert over the bridge by Bowmans, which is already a dangerous spot due to the narrowness of the bridge.
• Speed humps are not the answer in Ickleford - if we have any form of traffic calming we need a proper consultation with a proper and accurate survey. Lets get our figures correct before we start shall we!! with all the roads being considered. The present proposal does not include the road from the junction to Bowmans Mill. Therefore the motorist will ‘put his foot down’ as soon as the humps have finished therefore creating a speed way along this part of the village road especially where the pavements are at there most narrow and where most of children walk to and from the schools along Old Hale Way.
• 1. The only vehicles that we ever seemed to hear approaching Ickleford at speed were the ‘hot’ hatches or more powerful motor bikes from along the Arlesey and Bedford Rds.
  2. Previously, we lived on a street in North London that had speed humps installed to stop its use as a ‘rat’ run. From personal experience speed humps cause more noise (and pollution) as cars accelerate away from each to the next. Those living on the roads concerned WILL definitely hear (and smell) the difference.
  3. Flashing speed signs, like the one at the entrance to Ickleford (on the Arlesey Rd), are a far more efficient method of slowing traffic. Perhaps a further reminder of speed at the bend approaching the Primary school would be all that is required to keep speeds down, and retain the village beauty. Surely this would be the cheapest option too(?)
• It is clear that decisions have been made without the full support of the village as our delivered questionnaire was never even picked up! Humps will definitely increase noise and exhaust pollution which will be noticed by the residents living on the roads concerned (even if they are unaware of the issue now). They also spoil the overall look of the village which would be an unnecessary shame. Better methods would surely be further flashing speed signs, an average speed check through the village, or even width restrictors as used in Little/Great Wymondley?
• The present proposals have been rail roaded through by the PC without consulting the residents on the alternatives. A yes/no questionaire was part of their tactics in defence of accusations of not being democratic. I sent a letter to the PC beseeching them to consider alteratives. The touch paper had been lit long before proper consultation began!
• Keep the school crossing alterations
• Flashing signs/speed cameras better option
• The section of road from the Village Shop down to Bowman's Mill entrance will receive no traffic calming measures under the present plan. When drivers escape from their bumpy passage down Turnpike Lane towards Hitchen or through the middle of the village, they will accelerate to even higher speeds than usual as they pass Manor Close, Duncotts Close and Laurel Way. Clearly we are a forgotten part of the village!
• My wife and I have no objection to some form of traffic calming measure to reduce speed but we never voted for speed humps in the first place. Our roads are becoming obstacle courses due to dangerous pot holes and speed humps. Its a known fact that speed humps cause damage to the inner wall of a vehicle's tyre and damage to the suspension. Pot holes and humps look unsightly and will spoil the character of the village. How about a bus shelter at the bus stop?
• My objections to the use of speed cushions were made clear in communication to the Highways Agency many months ago and were ignored.
• I agree that there needs to be some measure of traffic calming, but speed humps are not the answer for a country village. Chicanes work perfectly well in other villages with narrower roads than ours. The work that has been done has already had an effect on the character of the village which now resembles a town centre. We need a different solution to that which was proposed, and forced through on the basis that something had to be done, that this was the only option, and that we would lose the opportunity if we didn't support it. This was not the only option, and if the money was available, it should have been spent elsewhere, notably on repairing pot holes outside Bowman's mill, by Hitchin's industrial estate, and on the link road from Ickleford to Letchworth.
• How come they can spend so much on making our village roads undrivable, yet they can't afford to carry out basic upkeep? Sadly, the vote on the road improvements was democratic (ed. actually it wasn't see how the questionnaires were flawed and results misled). I guess democracy means the freedom to make stupid decisions!
• I have been against the humps and registered my opinions with Murphy & Aziz at the highways dept in W.G.C.from the outset in April 09, for exactly the reasons above
• Would support a 20 mph zone
• Why so many? Surely a reduced speed restriction woulf be better, I'd far rather a 20 zone than humps everywhere.
• There are enough parked cars, horses and traffic islands to negotiate without any speed bumps. Will this actually make the village a safer place, I don't think so.
• Please find me someone who actually voted for these humps, I have yet to find anyone in the village that has!! Surely a police mobile unit a couple of times a month for a short period of time would prevent any speeding that occurs. The money could have been spent on something useful for the village, play areas for the children, improvements to the pavements, I could go on... How many accidents have we had in the village in the last 10 years that justifies this level of speed reduction??
• I definately agree that speedhumps are unecessary in Ickleford.
• Such a large number are unecessary and waste of money
• The majority of the time there are cars parked on the road and cars have to keep stopping anyway. Its not fair to penalise the majority of careful drivers for the minority. I'm concerned about the damage on my car as I have no choice but to use those roads. The crossing is a good use of resources outside the school but please save the money from the speed humps and put it to better use fixing the potholes in the roads!
• Effective speed restrictions are necessary but speed humps are not the right method. Other methods are available and should be discussed.
• Increased wear and tear on our vechicles and probably won't stop those that speed.
• there is more of a crossing issue at the top of turnpike lane and bedford road of which nothing is being done.
• Whist I agree that something needs to be done to slow traffic down whilst travelling through the village, i feel that the character of the village will be ruined and that businesses may suffer as people may decide to avoid Ickleford.As for the effect on our cars, it is well known that speed humps can cause expensive damage. The crossing is absolutely necessary, and maybe more flashing signs would encourage a safer environment.
• The number of humps to be installed is grossly over the top. I am not aware of previous problems regarding accidents or speeding that warrant this action. Surely one speed camera would of sufficed.
• An unnecessary addition to the village, in the 50 years I have lived in ***OMITTED*** there have been no serious incidents that warrant the noise and inconvenience of the humps. My son also uses an antique gents tricycle from the 1890's and the humps are going to prevent his right to ride it through the village.
• I think the plan which is going ahead contains too many speed humps. I think traffic calming is a good idea but other options would be more appropriate.
• i think the crossing is great for the school but as for sixteen speed bumps?!?! how ridiculous, ever thought about the fire engines or ambulances?? my husband is a paramedic and the wheel base of an ambulance is not that much wider, speed bumps could seriously effect someone's health if they need to be kept still in the back.... I DO NOT AGREE with the speed bumps, no one speeds through, it will also spoil out lovely village.
• The problem with speed bumps is it's the residents that suffer; the people who have invested so highly in the village - it's not the people you're targeting who you say speed through the village. The locals have to cope with this rash and uncalled for decision daily. I don't recall any accidents caused by speeding cars, so there is not even a statistic upon which these council dinosaurs can form their decision.
• Speed humps are rarely a good way of controlling speed. They are very dangerous to cyclists and motor cyclists, they damage other vehicles, and they often encourage speeding by impatient drivers trying to pass those going slowly over the bumps. They should be removed.
• I fear that this is all too late (ed. actually it's not - councils have removed previously installed humps due to public pressure) - protests should have been made at an earlier date. I did write to the council and officially oppose the measures but of course they were always going to go ahead. Unfortunately there will always be enough bovine people to back any kind of ill thought so-called safety measures and Ickleford is no different in this respect.
• Make more effort keeping cars off the pavement. Not only is this safer for pedestrians (e.g. school children, elderly, disabled, walkers), it also provides a natural impediment to speeding.
• Don't do it
• Speed humps are really not necessary
• The Hitchin area has far too many speed humps. There are other solutions: groups.google.com/group/hitchin-transport
• Whilst a Highways Dept survey indicates that the average speed of traffic through the village is a little over the statutory speed limit (i.e. between 36 and 37 MPH) the incidence of accidents is low. Whilst it may be argued that some low cost traffic calming may be called for, the present costly placing of road humps are an over the top response.They will spoil the look and amenity of the village and in our view will bring their own dangers and inconvenience and probably will not deter the determined person who gets a kick from speeding.The cost seems to us a misuse of money that might well be used to improve the roads and to get rid of dangerous pot holes instead of adding more obstructions for law abiding motorists to have to negotiate. We are very upset by the present work being carried out and will work with and support others who wish to see the removal of this blight on our village.
• I agree with the full width ramp at the school and measures to slow traffic at the shop and school where there is considerable pedestrian activity. Adding pyramid bumps the full length of Turnpike Lane and Arlesley Road is ludicrous. These are proven to damage the hidden inner walls of tyres leading to possible fatal tyre blow-out and also cause steering and suspension damage. The rocking motion due to hitting the bumps can cause back injury. Pinch points and 20mph limit would be more effective. The parked cars and horse-riders already create effective traffic obstructions. Surely the village atmosphere will be spoilt by totally inappropriate pyramid bumps
• Don't stop bad drivers! and at slow speeds can still cause damage to cars!
• Speed humps are the sledgehammer to crack a nut solution. They are unsightly, inappropriate and a major inconvenience. Negotiating humps when you are carrying babies, the elderly, delicate or fragile loads make driving uncomfortable and inconvenient. Speed humps are unnecessary when there are better alternatives. I am a retired Hertfordshire police officer, qualified as an advanced driver for 30 years.
• A 20 mph speed limit with safety cameras would be a much better solution at less cost and destruction of Arlesey Road. Why was this not considered?
• Humps are totally unsuitable for Turnpike Lane. As cars are always parked down there, speed cannot be an issue. I use the road daily and have never ever seen anyone speeding down there. On behalf of all our family and neighbours,please abandon plans for the road humps.
  Thank you.
• I have already sent email of complaint to the PC regarding the blocking of access in Arlesey Road especially Tue pm when I was stopped by workman guarding the work site and prevented access resulting in a detour back towards lechworth & via the Wilbury hills back to Ickleford ( save the planet ??)
• I whole heartedly support your campaign. Good luck
• This is a case of a hammer to crack a walnut. I I am disgusted by the way the Parish Council has ridden roughshod over the views of the residents of this once pleasant village. Speed humps are an abomination and the worst type of traffic calming measure. Why we we not ‘honestly’ consulted?
• i've seen so many articles against the speed bumps on the paper, but i haven't seen any in favor for the bumps, but the parish council keeps saying that majorrity of resdients were in favor. who are these people who are in favor? No one i'm sure.
• Herts Highways should be spending money maintaining the roads not wasting it on this!
• Humps cause damage to car suspensions and worn humps can damage the inner wall of tyres if you straddle them.
• The humps will not stop people breaking the speed limit.
• There has been no evidence presented that speed humps would solve any problems in Ickleford
• They should spend the money on filling in the pot wholes. Could they not put in priority road markings instead.
• zebra crossing yes multiple humps no!
• As a person bought up in Ickleford I am appalled that the village is having these road humps. It will ruin the charater of the village. They are unecesary, said to be done for “safety reasons”, there is not a safety problem in Ickleford Per se, just a speeding issue that can be controlled with cameras. Expect a rush of claims from motorists with damaged cars.
• Spend the money on the pot hole instead....I drive in Ickleford. never thought there really was a problem.. Just the NHDC spending the money before the new buget.
• I walk the main road frequently at various times of day & I think that the majority of people obey the speed limit. Also I rarely see any other pedestrians apart from before and after school. Most children arrive by car.
• I strongly object to what I feel is a needless waste of time money and energy in installing these un wanted and unnecessary speed humps. The money could be far better spent on improving the road surfaces and footpaths or some other sensible and useful project for the village. In my opinion the Parish Council is completely out of integrity in their handling of this whole affair, not to mention out of touch with the majority of the village residence real needs and opinions.