How can the obstacles that councils have installed on the roads in residential areas be described as "traffic calming"? The result of their existence is to violently pitch cars forward and backward, up and down, or left and right depending on the style of the "calming". The effect they produce is exactly the opposite to how they are euphemistically described.
I could go to task, writing about the environmental impact of these measures. The speeding up and slowing down of the traffic between each obstacle creates an increase in noise pollution, both from engines and tyres. There are increased health risks from the asbestos dust caused by the more frequent use of brakes, particularly in residential areas and around schools where most of the calming is sited. There is the cost of additional wear to gearboxes, exhaust mountings etc... Not to mention strain to neck, back and other muscles for the occupants of the cars attempting to negotiate these hazards. There are also additional health risks to patients in ambulances who may have injuries that become exacerbated by the bumpy ride to their local hospital. I could go on...
But instead, I would like to explore the reason why I think these measures are needed.
When I was a child, (and that is quite a few years ago now), I had the "kerb drill" drummed into my head by both my parents and my teachers at school. I remember being a little frightened of cars: I mean they could kill me if they run over me. I understood that cars may not stop if I stepped out in front of them. I also understood that my personal safety was my responsibility and therefore if I got run down by a car it was my fault. This thinking has kept me safe on the roads for around forty years.
So what's changed? Well, when I was a child, if I was hit by a car, it was my fault. Now, as an adult and a car driver I am told that if I hit a child that has stepped out in front of my car then as a driver, once again it is my fault. The rules seem to have been changed.
Now it seems to me that an individual will always have greater care and respect for their own safety than a complete stranger ever would. The best will in the world will not change that. This shift in responsibility is the reason for the installation of traffic calming.
But this causes some problems. Because children are no longer responsible for their own safety on the road as they once were, they have no thought or respect for the danger of traffic, so they step out into the road without a second thought. The only difference today is that cars will probably be traveling slower due to the traffic calming. Which is all fine, providing you accept that although just as many children will be hit by cars, the cars will probably be travelling slower and are less likely to seriously injure the children. If your child was injured by being hit by a car, would you be comforted by the thought that that the car was, at least, travelling within the speed limit? No? I thought not.
I'm not suggesting that car drivers shouldn't take every care when driving in residential areas, but wouldn't it be of benefit if children where taught to take some responsibility for themselves when crossing the road? If children didn't step out in front of cars, they would not get run down, irrespective of the speed of the traffic.
Traffic calming is not the answer. The answer is better education of children.