Anne M. McLean

October 25, 2002

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am led to understand that you do not believe that we in the UK have problems with all vertical deflection devices. It may not be widely recognised, but Certainly this is not the case. Those of us with back problems; these devices particularly inconvenience those undergoing cancer treatment and those of us having undergone surgery for cataracts. Several others with various disabilities are also at a sever disadvantage.

There are those of us who are virtually housebound as a result of the installation of Speed humps. Some of the problems arise because the humps are too high (100mm or more). The Department of Transport provides guidelines for local authorities advising councils not to install humps of more than 75mm (Traffic Advisory leaflet 7/96), but there is no definitive legislation prohibiting humps of greater heights. The majority of humps currently being installed are of the flat-topped variety and they are extremely uncomfortable for the disabled person to traverse.

All the relevant authorities play down such problems; possibly because of all of the emergency services, as council servants, find it almost impossible to criticise their colleagues in the council run transportation departments. To date we are unaware of any research done into the damage caused to people travelling by ambulance over these devices. Most ambulance services now stipulate that humps be of no more than 75 mm high if they are consulted at the planning stage.

People who have undergone eye surgery are advised to avoid any sudden jolt to the eye. How can this possibly avoided when crossing a hump? There are cases of people who have suffered a stroke who have speed platforms straddled across their driveways. This is their only means of access to their homes. No matter how slowly cars drive to exit driveways and no matter how well strapped in the individual is, they are thrown all over the place simply to gain access and egress from their own home. In the case of the post surgical patient this can have devastating results on the residents' rate of recovery and can even jeopardise the eventual outcome of the operation itself.

I myself suffer from back problems and find the journey down any street with humps a nightmare, no matter how slowly I traverse the devices. We are shortly to have a skateboarding facility built adjacent to our street and foresee real problems with youngsters travelling home via the humps (which are sited on a hill). The residents genuinely believe that instead of saving lives, this will be a recipe for disaster. To date we have had no fatalities in our street, but feel that it will be only a matter of time before such a tragic even occurs. The use of humps in such a manner also greatly detracts from the value of the surrounding properties as a result of the damage done to pavements, installations etc by the skateboarders.

One other drawback to the installation of those devices is the inability of the snow plough to clear snow where such devices are installed particularly at the hump itself. Where, as in our case, the developed site is on a hill this makes access and egress from our properties more than doubly difficult in inclement weather.

The installation of chicanes on the other hand, not only reduces parking spaces for Residents, but hampers any manoeuvres from or into their properties. There have been several cases where such installations have had to be removed after installation even one outside a hospice. Perhaps it is time to think about the consequences of such installations before the damage is done, rather than wasting public money in this way.

Yours Sincerely,

Anne M. McLean