Remember no one is asking for an end to traffic calming, just TC reform. You be the judge.

"There is something of a peoples revolt against Traffic calming going on in Lancashire at the moment, and most of the seats lost by New Labour in the recent local council elections ( Accrington Area ) were in wards where traffic calming has been inflicted on the residents."

The following information was sent in by e-mail from an opponent of Traffic Calming and resident of Lancashire England, gordp@enterprise.net

G Pye states in his post from the UK.....
"Your site on traffic calming was probably the most informative and constructive attack on the alleged benefits I have yet seen on the web. Traffic calming is very unpopular with professional safe drivers in the UK, but its difficult for anyone to get a fair hearing when opposing traffic calming schemes. I enclose copies of two letters I sent to the Lancashire Evening Telegraph ( based in Blackburn ) on the alleged benefits of Traffic Calming. They were both published in edited form, but all the main points were included."
The following are G Pye's statements from his letters to the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. His statesments concerning Traffic Calming and the manner in which it causes more pollution not less are based on his proffesional driving experience and ring true all the way across the "pond."

Dear sir: I have been following the debate about traffic calming in LET over the past few weeks and wish to throw in a few observations of my own. You may find it strange that as an experienced Class 1 HGV driver and motor vehicle technician, I totally agree with Adrian Shurmer on the safety aspects of traffic calming, but perhaps the extra pollution caused by traffic calming is of more interest to the non motorist. Internal combustion engines are pretty inefficient due to the fact that most of the energy consumed is lost to atmosphere through the cooling radiator and exhaust. At speeds below about 60Mph, the total amount of fuel used is therefore dependent on the total time under power. If a vehicle is forced to slow to negotiate a hump or mini-roundabout, and then accelerate back to the original speed, the overall fuel consumption for the distance from the start of braking to the end of accelerating is vastly increased; and probably almost doubled, especially at the foot of a hill ! Furthermore, recent research has draw attention to the danger of dust particulate pollution emanating from road vehicles. Each time a vehicle uses its brakes, the friction linings wear and generate fine dust particles, tyre wear is also increased under braking and accelerating conditions. Tyre wear is also increased when turning sharp corners, and it is hardly surprising that dust particulate pollution is said to be far higher near junctions. At a time when we are alleged to be looking for ways to reduce CO 2 emissions, it seems rather strange that many local authorities are still introducing measures which probably increase road traffic pollution. The small diameter roundabouts recently fitted to many local main routes are probably the worst in this respect. The ( new ) roundabout on the A56 at Kelbrook used an extra 2 Gallons of fuel per day, which averaged out at about 1 litre for each time I crossed it with my articulated vehicle after it was built. I have also undertaken a rough mathematical calculation based on time under power which gives a similar answer. The whole theory behind traffic calming may not be far removed from Monty Python's Flying Circus, but even they stopped a sketch featuring gangs of marauding Keep Left bollards for being far to silly ? It all seems like a crazy race to find the ultimate Big Business marketing challenge, by devising a new idea which is patently ridiculous, just to see how many people will be taken in and believe it, and then to see how long they can get away with it ? It may be the case that a large proportion of the population have been mislead in a similar fashion over traffic calming, and likewise the politicians, especially those with an alleged " green " pedigree ? Traffic calming may statistically reduce serious road accidents, but perhaps it doubles the number of people suffering from asthma and other potentially serious respiratory conditions ?

Dear sir: Road Safety has always been used as the primary justification for Lancashire County Council's ongoing traffic calming policy, but it now appears that most of the alleged road safety benefits may be false ? Ex-Police driving instructor Adrian Shurmer has led the fight against traffic calming, as he firmly believes that it makes our roads more dangerous, and my own previous letter ( 12/5/98 ) outlined the waste of fuel and extra pollution caused. I recently read a weekly newspaper article inferring that local cycling safety experts consider some of the new junctions so potentially dangerous that they advise cyclists to dismount and use the footpath. Judging by my own past experience as a Class 1 HGV driver: If anyone had deliberately set out to design death traps for cyclists, it is doubtful whether they could have made a better job of it than L.C.C. traffic calming measures ! L.C.C. spin doctors may be able to statistically prove that traffic calming reduces death on the roads, but perhaps this welcome reduction in fatal accidents is mainly due to the excellent paramedic ambulance service, which has developed over the past few years, alongside the traffic calming measures ? I believe that the residents of Billington are still fighting against a proposed traffic calming scheme for their village, despite the fact that about 90% of them object to it on the grounds of common sense road safety. L.C.C. seem determined to use the scheme to justify the provision of a new junction in a potentially dangerous location, despite the fact that a very similar application for a a junction at this point was once turned down as it was considered far too dangerous. There is also an alternative relatively safe access route to the new housing development which could be easily designed and constructed at the other end of the proposed site ? Perhaps Billington holds the key to the true pedigree of traffic calming. The Government has recently announced that it is considering charging Tolls on major trunk routes, but any future PRIVATE Toll Roads will probably fail ( drivers will vote with their steering wheel ) if practical alternative free routes are available. The section of the A59 by-pass between Langho and the A671 roundabout at Bramley Mead ( Whalley ) may be a prime target in a long standing secret corporate plan for private toll roads, and Billington is on a practical alternative route, especially if you are travelling from Preston towards Burnley ? The same principle probably applies to the A666 at Darwen. It was once fairly easy to nip over Bull Hill, the most direct and often the quickest route to Bolton and beyond, but that means avoiding the New M65, which is probably also ear-marked as a Toll Road.? I believe that the awkward roundabouts which are a feature of the new M65 intersections have already claimed one overturned HGV, but such designs may be essential for the reliable operation of electronic toll equipment ? Any future toll road scheme may also include the section of the A59 from the A671 at Clitheroe Golf Club through past Chatburn. L.C.C. appears reluctant to repair the Clitheroe Road railway bridge at Chatburn, even though a 7.5 tonne weight limit on this bridge will force all HGV’s and the heavier agricultural tractors delivering to Chatburn, or through to the surrounding farms and villages to use the far longer A59 By-pass, even for traffic originating from only 2 miles away in Clitheroe, and Pendle Trading Estate, located about 200 yards from the Clitheroe side of the bridge ? I believe L.C.C. claims that it does not have sufficient funds to repair the main over-railway bridge at Chatburn, but this may be in some part due to traffic calming ? The gangs of marauding Keep Left bollards probably make the roads far more expensive to maintain, because all the heavy lorries and buses must run in almost exactly the same track, ( Tram Lines ) and therefore they tend to destroy the road surface in less than half the time they did before traffic calming etc. The optimum specified safe minimum distance from the kerb was 18 inches when I passed my HGV test back in 1982, but this safe distance is impossible to achieve where traffic calming measures exist. Apart from the obvious potential danger to pedestrians from loose sheet ties etc., this important distance also reduced any risk of damaging the drain grates, and helped to prevent damage to the invariably weaker section of the road foundations at the nearside kerb edge. Perhaps the A59 at Copster Green is the best local example of the extra wear and tear caused by the intoduction of traffic calming, even though L.C.C. may be able to hide the frequent essential repairs by doing them at night, which probably increases the cost even further. It probably doesn’t end there, the extra pot holes and broken grates may cause many of those still brave enough cyclists to fall off, and perhaps such occurances burden L.C.C. with massive extra legal costs ? The probable extra vehicle maintenance costs for local bus services may also put a few ten’s of thousands extra on the subsidy required by the operators, and yet the fares may still increase ? It was once a relatively simple task to completely resurface a main road using mechanical equipment, but the pinch points and small diameter roundabouts must make good quality resurfacing far more difficult, take far longer, and cause temporary congestion over a longer period. L.C.C. could probably save itself a fortune if it got rid of traffic calming ? The increased road maintenance costs caused by traffic calming may force L.C.C. to actively consider charging tolls for major trunk routes, initially starting on those roads with no residential housing, in addition to the Motorway network under the soon to be reformed Highways Agency ? It may be reasonable to believe that the corporate lobbyists have tricked our elected representatives into supporting traffic calming as a road safety measure, in order to make it very difficult, if not financially impossible for them to resist the eventual privatisation of almost all major through trunk routes. And as bonus, reduce their start up costs, and increase the regular income from Private Toll Roads even though they may always receive a large public subsidy ? The corporate lobbyists may have also caused L.C.C. to replace miles of what appeared to be perfectly serviceable trunk road lighting, with new low energy lamps. The new lamp posts were probably unnecessary to achieve lower energy costs and theoretically cut pollution, but they may reduce toll road running costs for any prospective future private operators ? It may be the case that the previous Tory government lost many votes because of its open intention to charge tolls on Motorways etc.. Even though the present government appeared to have no such plans at the last general election, perhaps the increasing financial burden on the NHS has forced them to seek extra sources of revenue. It may be the case that the increasing number of people suffering from chronic lung disease, ( perhaps causing longer hospital waiting lists ) is in some part due to the extra pollution generated by traffic calming measures ? Corporate multinational businesses are the only probable winners with traffic calming and toll roads. The larger national distribution companies will probably be able to negotiate vastly reduced road access rates, but the local smaller companies will probably have to pay full price. Our competitive small local road hauliers may be unfairly forced out of business, and the large national distribution companies may be able to hold smaller scale manufacturing industry to ransom ? Toll roads are also likely to restrict freedom of movement for many ordinary car owning families, and that occasional trip to the sea-side, the countryside, or a visit to far away relatives and friends may become a thing of the past for many people, even if they can afford to buy the new electronic in-car toll equipment ? Perhaps its the case that: Never in the field of local public services has so much taxpayers money been wasted for the benefit of so few !