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
index
previous comment
next comment