Speedbumps on Windlehurst Road / Hibbert Lane

[jimblob]

I have a BMW, i have to crawl over those bumps, typically, i go down the Strines if i have to go A6 South.

Windlehurst Road would not meet the criteria for the installation of a speed camera and therefore physical traffic calming measures, as installed, were considered to be the most appropriate method of reducing speeds.

As I said before, the speedhumps on Windlehurst are not to reduce speed, they're a deliberate deterrent to make people use other routes. So called "Mitigation measures" actually funded with SEMMs bypass money.
Stockport Highways and our consultation process with only local residents for these types of schemes are tantamount  to corruption at worst and at the very least aboslutely useless. Why build a bypass for £270m and then deter motorists from practically getting to it?

Cummon Cllr Macalister, follow through on your pledge to get these removed

[ROTHERS]

As a driver for over 50 years I have to say that speed bumps are useless. The only drivers who obey them are those who don't need telling. The drivers they are aimed at just carry on speeding over them, obviously not giving a damn until their cars are damaged - and then they whine and try to claim damages. A few widely reported prosecutions and high fines for a first offence and loss of licences for subsequent offences, on the front page of local and national newspapers, would be more of a deterrent. Particularly if names, addresses and photographs are included!

I have a BMW, i have to crawl over those bumps, typically, i go down the Strines if i have to go A6 South.
I emailed the council on 19th April about the bumps and why not speed camersa instead of bumps..
Reply from Katy Farrer :-
The primary objective of safety camera deployment is to reduce the number of killed and seriously injured persons on roads by reducing the level and severity of speeding and red-light running. Enforcement is targeted at locations where there is evidence of personal injury collisions; where data highlights speed is a contributory factor issue and there is evidence of non-compliance to the posted speed limit.

Windlehurst Road would not meet the criteria for the installation of a speed camera and therefore physical traffic calming measures, as installed, were considered to be the most appropriate method of reducing speeds.

[Stephen]

I do tend agree - I passed my cycling proficiency test many years ago at primary school and even now many years later I still have a bicycle and use it, but to cycle from Marple to the airport, sorry no way (unless it's just to pass a few hours on a Sunday in summer) its much too far and would take too long. I do tend to think that realty needs to dawn on some in the council offices.

[jimblob]

As a driver for over 50 years I have to say that speed bumps are useless. The only drivers who obey them are those who don't need telling. The drivers they are aimed at just carry on speeding over them, obviously not giving a damn until their cars are damaged - and then they whine and try to claim damages. A few widely reported prosecutions and high fines for a first offence and loss of licences for subsequent offences, on the front page of local and national newspapers, would be more of a deterrent. Particularly if names, addresses and photographs are included!

But all of this requires policing....
That aside, the speed humps on Windlehurst aren't actually designed to reduce speeding, they were specifically installed as "mitigation measures" once the bypass opened. They're there to deter motorists from using this route! How stupid can a highways team actually get than to build a bypass and then suggest that once you leave said bypass, half the routes at the end of it are configured to deter motorists from using them. The net result, everyone uses Dan Bank and Torkington, so there's queueing traffic there every single day, belching out fumes and causing delays!..... Stockport Highways (not mentioning any names... Nick Whelan, Sue Stevenson) need to wake up and smell the coffee so the rest of us don't have to smell diesel fumes.

[My login is Henrietta]

I see yesterday (Sunday 16th Feb) a Stagecoach bus fell victim to the perilous speed humps on Windehurst just near the Andrews Lane junction. The bus had to be recovered and there's now a healthy gouge in one of the speed tables which will also likely require a repair. When will someone just take a breath, get off their safety high horse and stop building these ridiculous things and use the tarmac for filling in holes rather than creating damaging obstacles that increase air polution, cause noise, cause vehicle damage and restrict the ability of public service vehicles and more importantly emergency vehicles from going about their business. Come on councillors, show us your mettle and instead of endlessly talking about this, admit you got it wrong, that these need to go and DO something about it.

As a driver for over 50 years I have to say that speed bumps are useless. The only drivers who obey them are those who don't need telling. The drivers they are aimed at just carry on speeding over them, obviously not giving a damn until their cars are damaged - and then they whine and try to claim damages. A few widely reported prosecutions and high fines for a first offence and loss of licences for subsequent offences, on the front page of local and national newspapers, would be more of a deterrent. Particularly if names, addresses and photographs are included!

[jimblob]

I see yesterday (Sunday 16th Feb) a Stagecoach bus fell victim to the perilous speed humps on Windehurst just near the Andrews Lane junction. The bus had to be recovered and there's now a healthy gouge in one of the speed tables which will also likely require a repair. When will someone just take a breath, get off their safety high horse and stop building these ridiculous things and use the tarmac for filling in holes rather than creating damaging obstacles that increase air polution, cause noise, cause vehicle damage and restrict the ability of public service vehicles and more importantly emergency vehicles from going about their business. Come on councillors, show us your mettle and instead of endlessly talking about this, admit you got it wrong, that these need to go and DO something about it.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

Of course I read what you said Kenny.  It's a question of money and interpretation of guidelines, in this case by SMBC officers and also of our own leadership as councillors.  I have advised officers of what they do in Bedford, but obviously I am less active as I am stepping down. 

So if there were "different criteria" would you like to see average speed cameras soon in High Lane?  Given they do cost a bit, not everyone is always for them and they only work on certain stretches of road.  And we need police involvement in the prosecution element.

[CllrKennyBlair]

@CllrGeoffAbell I am sorry but I have the emails to the Officer concerned with the residents parking and Cllr Ingham was not involved.

As for the speed cameras, did you read what I wrote? I suggested speed cameras during the consultation as did many residents but when the road was assessed against the criteria it did not qualify. You state there is another criteria of community concern, but at the risk of repeating myself, on checking the drive safe website, this would only result in mobile speed cameras. However, I have asked the Safety Officer to confirm this or otherwise.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

Related to that, Cllr Geoff Abel has tried to claim Cllr Ingham was involved in the Residents Parking scheme. As Chris has already stated, she was not involved. Residents had put two petitions together, but as I understand it, this was consulted on previously with the conclusion that this was not supported. Shortly after my election in 2015 I was contacted by a resident regarding this issue and I asked Officers to look back into it.  This resulted in a consultation (which is when Chris contacted me the first time asking where it was initiated from) and residents now have the parking scheme. Cllr Ingham had nothing to do with it.

I am afraid that's not true.  There were 3 applications for resident's parking, and Sue got the third one through by determining the correct area.  Even then, she tells me, there were objections that had to be overcome and compromises to be made.  Others may have made representations, but Sue led it and brought it to fruition.

You know, Kenny, I give you credit where's it's due.  (e.g. Eastwood waiting restriction)  But the best is when we both push for the same thing, such as preventing the 4,000 house overdevelopment in High Lane.
And you are right re average speed cameras - I did not push it originally, but @ColinMac is.  That's why there's achoice in this election.  A resident of High Lane last night said she suggested it over a year ago too.

[CllrKennyBlair]

Thanks Geoff, yes I missed the hustings (which I helped initiate) as I was in Dubai with work. I actually write this as I fly home.

I a, not disputing they work, but my question was, where were your representations (or that of Sue) when you had the chance, not when votes were needed? The costs I received from the Safety Officer at SMBC, not Bedford. (Although I did say they were approx).

As for the new criteria, I have asked the Officer about this but a quick check on the drive safe website (the official website for the Greater Manchester Drive Safe partnership) indicates that areas of community concern only receive mobile enforcement. We had numerous discussions with GMP about mobile enforcement including when we walked the whole length of Windlehurst to Andrew Lane with them. They agreed to some mobile enforcement, but little happened.


[attachment deleted by admin]

[GM]

Without getting political, the speed humps are not only a waste of public money.

But also against all common sense, as there is a huge industrial estate at the Goyt Mill and Batesons Trailers further on.

All of which require large amounts of Hgv access, excluding the agricultural traffic with trailers and other equipment!.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

I agree with Kenny in that our job is to do the best for the most residents possible.

A few corrections if I may.

All 6 current councillors accepted officers recommendations, based on a limited consultation exercise along Windlehurst Road, where volume of traffic was the largest worry.  (And plans had to be split at the Marple Area Committee as there was pushback from cllrs and residents.)
@ColinMac  was not one of those 6 and many residents hate the current implementation.  I know as I've talked to them, including at last night's candidate hustings.  (I understand your work commitments prevented it.)  Road tables seem to be less loathed.

We have seen average cameras in action.  They work.  This is new evidence in an evidence-based approach.  They cost £70k per pair to install, however long the stretch, although it's better if there are no junctions in between.  The money goes to the Home Office, at least under current regulations.  The police do the prosecution.  Without pollution, slowing emergency vehicles, noise, damage to cars and people, THEY WORK!  The first scheme was on a main road through a village (much like High Lane) and the average went from 47 mph to 31 mph.   (Whereas a single Speed Indication Device reduced speed by 1 mph only.)  You can visibly see cars slowing with less noise and less accidents in consequence.

Kenny would have been right about fatalities years ago, but there is now a new criterion of "Community Concern" for this sort of installation.  I think this community is concerned!

[CllrKennyBlair]

The thread is going slightly off topic, but before I answer the question on the speed bumps, would just like to clarify a couple of points.

Chris stated the following "I've asked Kenny Blair to chase it several times but he has failed to get back to me." This indicates that I have not responded in any way to your query. You first contacted me on 11th December 2015 asking about why residents had received a questionnaire on Residents Parking. I responded on the 11th Dec with

"I believe the questionnaire you have received is as a result of some work I have been doing with Council Officers since July after an enquiry from a resident in the vicinity. I understand this was consulted on previously with the conclusion that this was not supported. If the residents support this during this consultation, then hopefully the scheme will be implemented."

Chris then contacted me later that day and mentioned the 20mph speed limit. We had various correspondence on the topic of Church Lane in general over the next 9 months and I advised I was chasing Officers on the 20mph speed limit. I was advised by Officers in December 2016 that a report to MAC was coming, but the Officer has since left and I hold my hands up, it dropped off my list.

Related to that, Cllr Geoff Abel has tried to claim Cllr Ingham was involved in the Residents Parking scheme. As Chris has already stated, she was not involved. Residents had put two petitions together, but as I understand it, this was consulted on previously with the conclusion that this was not supported. Shortly after my election in 2015 I was contacted by a resident regarding this issue and I asked Officers to look back into it.  This resulted in a consultation (which is when Chris contacted me the first time asking where it was initiated from) and residents now have the parking scheme. Cllr Ingham had nothing to do with it.

Now to the main topic, the speed humps. I am really surprised that Cllr Abel and his colleagues have taken the stance they have taken. The Lib Dem executive Cllr approved the development of Speed Management measures on Windlehurst Road and Andrew Lane on 6th April 2016. From the 2nd stage consultation, 80% of 346 respondents wanted some form of Speed management measures for Windlehurst Road. (agree with Admins point that they may not have wanted what they now have, but nevertheless there was support for Speed Management). Indeed, members of the Windlehurst Area Living Streets, High Lane Residents Association, Hawk Green Residents Association and others all agreed with the final Council proposals at a meeting in high Lane Village Hall, at which I was the only Cllr present.

Cllr Abel and co should be aware that the Council looked at many alternatives. Their favoured one is average speed cameras. I ask, what representation did they make to Council Officers during the consultation process? The answer is none. In fact Cllr Ingham responded to a resident who queried the speed humps on Windlehurst by saying the following - “All I will add is that I know from experience that the speed humps on Hibbert Lane have worked in reducing the average speed of vehicles and that since they were installed there has not been one accident along that stretch of road, where previously there were quite a few. “
In addition, they seemed happy to highlight the fact “There will be a range of new traffic calming measures for our area including pedestrian crossings on Windlehurst and Buxton Lane.” This was published in Autumn 2016.

In contrast, I challenged Officers on their proposals on 20th July 2016 as they were proposing 15 speed cushions, 5 junction tables and 1 flat top hump.

I proposed - 

The junction tables are maintained, with additional table at Parkside Close. 
The pathway widening is maintained and expanded to the bottom end of Windlehurst Road near Doodfield Stores. 
The flat top hump is maintained.
The 15 speed cushions are removed from the proposal. They are replaced with -
Flat top hump speed cushions are installed on the fastest part of the road at lamppost 36 on Windlehurst Road. Near to Withington Hill Farm, 191 Windlehurst Road, High Lane, Stockport SK6 8AG. Alternatively, a speed camera is installed at this location, which I thought would be a far cheaper option. ( I can provide a copy of that email also if anybody would wish to see it)

As such, I asked for a report by the GM Safety Partnership (who control where Speed Cameras go in GM) into Windlehurst Road to see if we could put Speed Cameras or Average Speed Cameras in place here. If anybody wants to see a copy of that report, they are welcome to email me at cllr.kenny.blair@stockport.gov.uk for a copy. The road did not meet the criteria (I don't agree with the criteria but these are National Guidance) below -
3 Killed or Seriously Injured per km or
In the absence of that, number of slight collisions meets  22/km.

In addition, the approximate cost for a simple entry / exit average speed camera system over 1 mile is £100k. Windlehurst is approx 1.5miles long from Hawk Green Road to A6, so cost approx £150k.

In response to my proposal, Council Officers advised that the guidance is to prefer speed cushions over Speed humps for Bus Services and Emergency Services. Guidance published by TfGM states “Speed cushions are the preferred vertical measure on bus routes. These are best used in small numbers, as part of a combined scheme of traffic calming measures.
Speed tables and raised junctions are acceptable in small numbers at key locations, preferably as part of a combined scheme of traffic calming measures.”
They did however concede on some points and reduced the number of speed cushions.

While all 6 Councillors voted on the speed humps, it was a choice of this or nothing and speeds have reduced on certain parts of the route. I am by no means happy at the size and location of some of the bumps and would be happy to look for alternatives. Given the number of buses has reduced significantly (another issue which we are trying to resolve), I believe it would be sensible to look again at my original proposal which was removing the speed cushions and replacing with full width speed tables at key locations (i.e. on approach down towards Andrew Lane, outside lamppost 36 on Windlehurst Road and install the final table at Doodfield)

Finally, I have seen claims on here about party politics and being whipped to vote in a certain way. I have said many times, I have not been whipped to vote in any way and I am here to represent the residents. I will vote based on the evidence before me. If others are too weak to stand up for their own beliefs or what their residents believe on local issues, then that is their issue.

[chriswallis labour]

Geoff I'm interested in this canard that is turning into a flock that Cllr Ingham - for whom I have the utmost respect - 'got the resident's parking in Church lane'. In what respect did she 'get' it? was it her idea? No, it was the resident's idea. Did she encourage us to pursue it? No, she attended one meeting that I know of after that hilarious debacle regarding the Carver theatre car park, at which we had presented our second petition. Note that, our second petition, the first having been somehow forgotten or lost, so that the clerk announced our second petition as our first. It took five years to get resident's car parking in Church Lane. No doubt Cllr Ingham was involved in doing what Cllrs do regarding these matters, but that was her job. As I understand it we went through all the necessary procedures including three collections of signatures in all, and the wheels of bureaucracy turned. So, am I missing something? Oh, and we were promised a 20mph speed limit but we were told the Lib Dem council didn't have the £6k necessary to implement it. 

[K.C.Dowling]

You're right Geoff, ...'Enforcement is a problem...'

Whether it be speeding, litter-drop, dog fouling et al. Where there is no enforcement, there will be no change.

One symptom of this austerity mantra, is that it has successfully bred a 'can't do' mentality as far as enforcement is concerned.

Can't do because...No Money, No Officers, No Staff, No resources, No Time. The list is endless and everything begins with 'NO!'

Our officials and Officers, both elected and unelected are far too comfortable with each other and with this mentality. If the electorate continues with its allegiance to National Parties and its slavish devotion in voting for NO CHANGE, then NO CHANGE  is what we will get and NO CHANGE, is exactly what we will deserve. Today it will be speed bumps and dog pooh. Tomorrow who knows - 4000 houses on the greenbelt?