South Milford & Lumby

North Yorkshire

Introduction

The results of The Parish Plan carried out in 2004/5 showed that 60% of the respondents complained about the speed bumps on Low Street. In The Parish Plan, formally adopted by South Milford Parish Council, replacing the speed bumps along Low Street with a more village friendly measure was a top priority. To satisfy this requirement a sub group of The Village People sent a questionnaire to every household in South Milford and Lumby asking for their views on the speed bumps. This short report summarises the views and the attached tables show the exact figures.

Analysis of Views

Of the 235 questionnaires returned 213 said NO to the speed bumps, 90.6%. The response from Low Street residents was 100% against the speed bumps. From the results of the questionnaire it was evident that everyone agreed that some traffic calming measure on Low Street was necessary.

Objections

From the Low Street residents noise was overwhelmingly the main factor (90%), followed by the fact that bikes (many on this road) weave round the bumps as do quite a few cars thereby not reducing their speed at all. The rest of the village complained about damage to vehicles and again the problems with bikes and cars weaving through the bumps. They were also concerned about the noise being experienced by the Low Street residents and the fact that wagons, buses and wide based vehicles could straddle the bumps and often got annoyed with car drivers when the cars had to slow down to negotiate the bumps thereby slowing them down.

Proposals

Lots of alternative solutions were given, often incorporating 2 or 3 other traffic calming methods, however, the overall opinion was flashing lights when a vehicle approaches at a speed higher than the speed limit (ie as Towton). Everyone agreed that Towton was a great success and the same system when used in other areas was also successful. As part of the "as Towton" scheme the idea of plateaux at either end of the village was popular and 2 pedestrian/pelican crossings, one by Beech drive which is already agreed and the other by The Swan. The one by the Swan was requested by the residents and included in the Parish Plan.

Accident Rates (statistics attached)

Prior to speed bumps there were 7 accidents in 5 years and, although there has been a decrease in the speed of traffic since installing the speed bumps, there has been an alarming increase in accidents - 5 accidents in 1¾ years.

There was much anger and frustration evident in the replies. "Why weren't we consulted?" The Meeting held by the Parish Council in November 2002 was not adequately advertised and we are informed, by someone who attended the meeting, that it was a farce as they were more or less told "You will have speed bumps". It would seem that the people most affected had no say.
The bumps are higher, wider and longer than the originally published plans. They have been altered at least twice and are still incorrect.
It was said by Highways that the flashing lights did not work as drivers ignored them, as they knew there was no comeback. This has been proved to be a false assertion. It should also be noted that traffic approaching Towton, where the flashing lights work well, are reducing their speed from a 60 mph limit whereas in South Milford they would only be reducing from a 40 mph limit so it should be even more effective in South Milford.

Conclusion

In summing up it is quite apparent that the speed bumps are not achieving the desired reduction in accidents. There have been more accidents since the introduction of the speed bumps than previous and this in itself is sufficient reason to replace them with more village friendly traffic calming, without even considering the noise being experienced by the Low Street residents It is unfair to put a traffic calming measure in a small village which causes distress to the residents living alongside the road. The skips and wagons which are allowed to go through the village, ie Mytum & Selby Skips and Sissons are exceedingly noisy and go along the road in the early hours of the morning. The cars, instead of making a general humming noise, now brake prior to the bumps and accelerate after the bumps causing fluctuations in noise levels.

It must be pointed out that people live in South Milford and if their lives are being badly affected by speed bumps then other traffic calming measures, agreed to by the residents and by South Milford Parish Council, should be installed and the offending speed bumps removed. The Parish Council must be given adequate time to inform the residents of any meetings/measures being considered. Our Village, Our Life, Our say,

Recommendation

As there is going to be a review of the traffic calming measure by NYCC this Report should form a significant part of that review.

Attachments

1 Tables showing views of respondents
2 Accident tables
3 Copy of questionnaire sent to residents
4 Pages relating to speed bumps in the Parish Plan and page relating to pedestrian crossing for residents of Common Lane in the Parish Plan

(1) RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON SPEED BUMPS

Approx 850 sent out, 235 returned = 27.6%

NO to speed bumps 31 Low Street
NO to speed bumps 182 rest of village
YES to speed bumps 0 Low Street
YES to speed bumps 22 rest of village

LOW STREET RESIDENTS
Objections

28 Noise
14 Cars/bikes weaving
14 Don't slow traffic down
11 Damage to cars
5 Damage to property
3 Very slow over bumps then revving up between bumps
2 Parked cars
2 Objects falling from vehicles
2 Value of property reduced
2 Irregular size and frequency
2 Pollution
1 Speeding over bumps, appearance, medical, diverting elsewhere in village, no fewer accidents, costs to ratepayers of frequent attempts to install correctly, skip lorries

Proposed Systems

23 As Towton
13 Speed cameras
6 Chicanes (as Cawood)
5 Plateaux
4 Better Policing
3 Mini roundabouts
2 Better road markings
2 Parked cars
1 Pedestrian/pelican crossings, 20 mph throughout village, 20 mph on Low Street, as BAsh, ThW, MF, Hambleton, anything but Bumps

REMAINDER OF VILLAGE
Objections

105 Damage to vehicles
97 Bikes and cars weaving through bumps
55 Noisy
66 Don't slow traffic down; wagons, buses, 4x4s etc not affected; speeding over bumps
34 Irregular size and frequency
26 Parked cars
21 Very slow over bumps then revving up between bumps
16 Medical - bad backs, pregnant, patients in ambulances
9 Hazardous
8 Nuisance
8 Traffic diverting elsewhere thro' village
8 Pollution
3 Appearance
2 Barkers - loading and unloading cars
2 Drivers of wide wheel based vehicles get annoyed at car drivers slowing down for speed bumps
1 Crossing road hazardous, damage to goods in vehicles, not visible at night

Proposed Systems

109 As Towton
50 Speed cameras
25 Chicanes (as Cawood)
20 Plateaux
15 Better Policing
11 Pedestrian/pelican crossing
9 Rumble strips
8 Parked cars
6 Road markings
6 20 mph in throughout village
4 20 mph on Low Street
4 Weight restrictions on Low Street to be policed
3 Anything BUT speed bumps
3 Mini roundabouts
3 Traffic lights
2 Double yellow lines
2 More visible 30 mph signs
1 Smaller bumps, collapsing 30 mph and under bumps, calming as Brayton and Beeston (Leeds), one way round village, NO skips on Low Street

COMBINED RESULTS
Objections

116 Damage to vehicles
111 Cars and bikes weaving round bumps
83 Noise
81 Don't slow traffic down; wagons, buses, 4x4s etc not affected; speeding over bumps
36 Irregular size and frequency
28 Parked cars
24 Some cars very slow over bumps then revving between bumps
17 Medical distress; bad backs, pregnant, patients in ambulances
10 Pollution
9 Hazardous as drivers concentrating on bumps rather than road
9 Traffic diverting elsewhere in village to avoid bumps
8 Nuisance to locals
4 Appearance - looks bad (we are only a village)
5 Damage to property on Low Street
2 Barkers (loading and unloading cars)
2 Value of property reduced
2 Objects falling from vehicles
2 Drivers of wide wheel based vehicles get annoyed at car drivers slowing down for bumps

Proposed solutions

132 As Towton
63 Speed cameras
31 Chicanes (as Cawood)
25 Plateaux
19 Better policing
12 Pedestrian/pelican crossings
10 Parked cars
9 Rumble strips
8 Road markings
7 20 mph throughout village
6 Mini roundabouts
5 20 mph on Low Street
4 Anything BUT speed bumps
4 Better enforcement of weight restrictions
3 Traffic lights
2 Double yellow lines
2 30 mph signs made more visible

(2) ACCIDENTS ON LOW STREET

Prior to Speed bumps
7 accidents in 5 years

4 April 1997 Low Street and Common Lane Junction
26 August 1997 Sand Lane and Garage Junctions with Low Street
28 June 1998 Sand Lane and Low Street Junction
30 August 1999 Garage and Low Street Junction
15 March 2000 Low St (150 yards N side of Beech Drive)
7 August 2000 Low Street (30 yards S of railway bridge) rut in road
3 March 2001 Low Street by Swan Hotel (icy road)

There appear to be no accidents between March 2001 and May 2004

After introduction of speed bumps and up to 30 January2006
5 accidents in 1¾ years

31 May 2004 Low Street - bus hit bus shelter roof
29 July 2004 Low Street and Garage junction
31 July 2004 Milford Road. Motorcycle hits speed bump and passenger falls off (N of Railway Bridge)
21 May 2005 Low Street (overtaking parked car - speed bump caused driver to loose control and collide with house)
14 September 2005 Low Street (25 metres S of Beech Drive)

Conclusion

The accident ratio has increased dramatically since the introduction of speed bumps.
Four of the 12 accidents (33.3%) occurred at the junction of Sand Lane and Low Street, which also has access to the petrol station and to garages on both sides of the road. This is obviously an accident black spot.
One accident at the Common Lane and Low Street Junction.
Six accidents (50%) involved motorbikes/mopeds.
Two accidents were directly caused by the speed bumps.
Speeds on average, according to NY Highways data, have decreased since the speed bumps were installed but this has not helped to reduce the number of accidents.

(3) Copy of Questionnaire sent to Residents July 2006

SPEED BUMPS - SPEED BUMPS - SPEED BUMPS

South Milford Village People May 2006

To all residents of South Milford

This is your opportunity to express your opinion regarding the speed reduction bumps on Low Street.

Please complete this form and return to one of the following collection points before Saturday 10th June 2006: Sand Lane Stores, Post Office High Street, The Surgery High Street.

1 Do you support the current system, which is intended to reduce the speed of vehicles through the village?

YES/NO

(Please circle your answer and cross out the other one)

2 What are your objections?

3 What alternative system(s) would you favour?

To validate your form please state your name and address:

Name
Address

(4) Extract from the South Milford Parish Plan - 2004/2005

The local environment

Most people considered the Parish a good place to live, although badly maintained verges and footpaths, traffic/aircraft noise, dog fouling, lack of shops and speed bumps were disliked by the majority of respondents.
Residents liked the rural atmosphere and the easy links into the larger centres of York, Selby and Leeds.
40% thought that it would be worth paying for a roadsweeper/litter warden to clean the village and nearly 30% would like to have a "Spring clean day" once or twice per year

Summary of Actions:

At two community consultation sessions where the results of the questionnaire and other information was presented the following actions and projects were suggested and attendees were asked to give their priorities. These are shown as Priority 1 to 5 in each group.

Medium term projects

Priority 1 Replace Low Street speed bumps with more village friendly measures (cameras, speed censors [30mph] etc.)
Priority 2 Restrict the amount of new housing
Priority 3 Construct a Zebra crossing across Low Street, South Milford (near the Common Lane/Low Street junction)
Priority 4 Set up of a Youth Club
Priority 5 Start a Parish cleanup campaign (including residents and LA)
Others
Introduce speed control measures in other areas
Build a skateboard/BMX park
Enter the Best kept village competition
Enter an Open gardens scheme