Ickleford Humps - the Facts
These facts are based on figures provided by the Parish Council and checked by qualified statisticians. If you feel misled or your views have not been given sufficient consideration then tell us at www.mostsimply.com.
Parish Plan 2006 (see www.icklefordpc.com/Questionnaire_results_summary_booklet.pdf)
This questionnaire was biased as it states “Traffic speeding through the village has been identified as a major concern” and then goes on to ask “Are you concerned with the level of speed of vehicles travelling through the village?” This question predisposes the respondent to answer yes by stating that speed is a major concern and then asking if it is! Furthermore if the question was worded “Do you think some vehicles speed through the village” versus “Do you think that the majority of cars speed through the village?” the results are likely to be very different. If you ask an unbalanced question you get an unbalanced response.
Also this questionnaire is further flawed as in presenting potential traffic calming solutions it does not give any of the pros and cons associated with each proposed solution. For example, (NOTE numeric figures made up for illustration only) “Speed humps - proven to reduce speeding traffic by 5% - increases CO2 and noise pollution by 20%, costs average motorist in fuel, tyres and other repairs an extra £250 per year, can cause further pain and discomfort to elderly, infirm, and cancer and arthritis sufferers”, whereas “Flashing signs - proven to reduce speeding traffic by 4.9% - no noticeable change in air or noise polution, negligible cost to motorist”.
In summary 81.2% of households either did not want tables or speed humps as their preferred option for reducing speed, did not think speeding was an issue, or did not specify a preference. Details below:
63.9% concerned about speed (i.e. 504 out of 789 households) - not 85% as specified by the Parish Council!
36.1% not concerned about speed, or didn't know, or didn't express a view (i.e. 285 out of 789 households)
38% didn't specify a preference for reducing speed or didn't think speed was an issue (i.e. 300 out of 789)
22.3% most preferred flashing speed limit signs (i.e. 176 out of 789 households)
18.8% most preferred tables or speed humps (i.e. 148 out of 789 households)
16.3% most preferred pinch points or chicanes (i.e. 129 out of 789 households)
4.6% most preferred none of these options for reducing speed (i.e. 36 out of 789 households)
37.4% thought road surfaces were inadequate (i.e. 295 out of 789 households) - current “safety works” do not resolve this
31.1% thought pavements should be improved (i.e. 245 out of 789 households) - current “safety works” do not resolve this
December 2007 Herts Highways Traffic Survey (see www.icklefordpc.com/Ickleford_Traffic_consultation_October2008.pdf)
Arlesey Road: Average speed into village 32.1mph and average speed out of village 32.8mph - The police would not convict anyone for driving at these speeds and yet 8 pairs of speed cushions were proposed to be installed and 6 are actually now being installed plus an additional humped zebra crossing.
Turnpike Lane: Average speed into village 32.2mph and average speed out of village 33.6mph - The police would not convict anyone for driving at these speeds and yet 7 pairs of speed cushions were proposed. Now 2 speed cushions and a further 2 flat top tarmac humps that span the whole road are being installed even though the village was told only speed cushions would be installed. Miles Maxwell told us at the last Parish Council meeting that this is because the highways experts who came up with the whole scheme didn't measure the width of the road and there is not enough room for the proposed cushions.
Bedford Road: Average Speed away from Hitchin 41.2mph and average speed into Hitchin 37.5mph - The police would convict anyone driving at these speeds and yet the only speed reducing work is one speed activated sign. There have been numerous near misses here and many of you have already stated that this is a dangerous junction. None of the safety work will do anything to resolve this problem.
During 1/3/2005 to 29/2/2008 accident data showed there were no accident clusters and vehicle speed was given as a contributory factor in only one accident (see www.icklefordpc.com/TT_Ickleford_Feasibilty_-_Executive_Summary.pdf)
4 September 2008 - Parish Council endorse the Herts Highway traffic scheme prior to consulting with the village
This was against the wishes of Councillors Goldie and Palmer (see www.icklefordpc.com/IPC_Minutes_September_2008.pdf). We are told this was to secure funding. What sort of process is this that the Councillors are under pressure to accept a scheme without reasonable time to consult with their parish?
8 October 2008 Public Meeting at Village Hall (see www.icklefordpc.com/MINUTES_HH_and_IPC_Public_Meeting_08_October_2008.pdf)
Anyone at this public meeting will know that the hall was packed by residents - every single seat filled and people standing all around and crammed in at the back also. There were probably well over 160 residents at that meeting (NOTE the IPC feel there were 102 residents in point 83.2 of their minutes at www.icklefordpc.com/IPC_Minutes_November_2008.pdf, the IPC say 120 in their press release at www.icklefordpc.com/html/vote_for_speed_humps.html, and Highways document 150 at www.icklefordpc.com/MINUTES_HH_and_IPC_Public_Meeting_08_October_2008.pdf). With the exception of one person, every resident who was allowed to speak and/or ask a question was firmly against the speed humps in the village and each of those people ended with loud supporting applause.
The Parish Council and Highways told the village at that meeting the money for road improvements was only available for Ickleford then and if we delayed to consider more acceptable options the village would lose the money. Also we were told that in order to get the humped crossing outside the school the village had to have the 15 speed humps too. There are numerous crossings throughout the UK without a single hump on the approaches. Do different traffic laws apply in Ickleford?
October 2008 Village Consultation on proposals (see www.icklefordpc.com/html/vote_for_speed_humps.html)
In summary, 59.7% of adult residents were either against proposals for Arlesey Road or did not express an opinion, and 62.3% were either against proposals for Turnpike Lane or did not express an opinion. Details below:
Arlesey Road
40.3% of the village did not express an opinion.
40.3% in favour (yes the same!) of proposed traffic scheme for Arlesey Road (i.e. 67.5% of 59.7% who filled in the survey)
19.4% against proposed traffic scheme for Arlesey Road (i.e. remaining 32.5% of 59.7% who filled in the survey)
Turnpike Lane
40.3% did not express an opinion.
37.7% in favour of proposed traffic scheme for Turnpike Lane (i.e. 63.1% of 59.7% who filled in the survey)
22.0% against proposed traffic scheme for Turnpike Lane (i.e. remaining 36.9% of 59.7% who filled in the survey)
This survey was also flawed as there were no options for residents to indicate that although in favour of the other proposals for Arlesey Road and Turnpike Lane they were against 15 speed cushions through the village. However many people who have signed our petition against the humps have said that they annotated this on the survey but these comments do not appear to have been recorded. Therefore we question the validity and legality of this survey.
Finally
The cost of this work was exactly £222,917.95 and according to IPC Cllr Colin Thurstance is paid for by all Hertfordshire County Council Tax payers. There will be no safety improvements at the Turnpike Lane/Bedford Road roundabout, no safety improvements at Cadwell Bridge, no safety improvements at Bowmans bridge, and no road or pavement resurfacing with this money which was allocated for “Safety Improvements”.
You are paying for lighting improvements which look remarkably similar to what you already have, replaced bollards which achieve exactly the same as before (just easier to maintain by highways), and 8 speed cushions, 2 speed humps (across the whole road), and a humped crossing at the school, together with some other less significant and less impacting works.
Apparently the best advice the Police give for reducing speed in a village is to park your cars on the road. Interestingly cars regularly park partly on the pavement restricting access for pedestrians especially those with mobility scooters, pushchairs, and prams, on both Turnpike Lane and Arlesley Road. This is illegal and inconvenient. Why do the Police do nothing about it? If they parked fully on the road they would help reduce traffic speeds and prevent pedestrians having to push past their cars.
If the residents in the village don't speed through the village then it would be hard for anyone else to speed through the village.