Residents' Association Forum

I like to suggest some yellow lines in the high street between Aldous Craig and Hawes and Co. to stop people parking on that side so that traffic can flow properly

That would only allow cars to speed through the village and would increase traffic in our roads.  I vote against it  ???javascript:void(0);

Mg sounds like you are a nimby!

There was a people carrier parked on the side of the road for a while today, if restrictions were there then he would of been moved on. In fact I let a police car pass who waived to me for letting him through.

I don't know where you live and don't concur that people will park on your street to do some groceries, they should be using the Ashley Road car park. The local shops should be encouraging this. In fact I noticed its actually the staff of the shops who use a number of spaces.

They wonder why they don't get enough customers!

Does anyone on this website, own or run one of shops?

Bluesky - I think most people are NIMBYS from birth.  I'm not really ashamed of this because I think it is human nature to try and protect oneself, ones family and ones environment.    Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.  I find wins and losses tend to even themselves out over the years.  Probably Karma or fate or perhaps just plain old statistics.

slightly off subject, does anyone know if there are any plans to resurface the High Street ever?  

I cycled through there today (I normally keep a very wide birth of the HS in car or bike), as I wanted to stop at one of the cafes post ride and it is a death trap.  I cant believe the holes, it must be one of the worst sections of road in Surrey.

Mark - from Thistledene

Queen's Drive must be up there as one of the worst sections too.

I am not sure how the resurfacing policy works. Last year they only resurfaced a section of Summer Road having just repainted the road markings (the section that was in better condition).

Petter Hickman has been pressing for the High St to be put higher up the county's list of roads to be resurfaced.  A couple of years ago I recall that it was to be done somewhere within the next 25 years (!).  We got it up to  no.100 on last year's list list but works in progress for the year covered only the first 63 roads.  I would think that suggests the High St might be done towards the end of this FY's budget if we're lucky......

In total agreement about resurfacing - it is truly awful with numerous potholes.

Wonder if Peter Hickman could push through the resurfacing of the High Street... it is voting time at the moment in Elmbridge - would help win my vote!  ;D

LOL - he's doing what he can, and you should vote for him anyway!

Latest news is that Surrey Highways are expected imminently to respond to his latest push to get the High St resurfacing brought forward from next FY to this.  Given that three years ago Highways said that there were no 'structural' problems there and they were not therefore giving it any priority, this would be (yet another) major achievement for persistence and hard work.

Whilst they are doing the potholes / Tarmac, can we have wider bumps. I was in holland park today and they have much smoothier delivery. 

Obviously we will never get rid of them / all of, but I feel they can be improved.

I agree.  The wider humps reduce speed, and are far less uncomfortable to drive over, and much less damaging to vehicle suspension, than the narrow humps.

However the narrow humps are much more comfortable for bikes.

Richard - understood,  Maybe there can be bike passes ( flat bites each side of the bumps for bikes)?

I have front suspension on my bikes which elevates the annoyance when on a bike. There was an interesting bit about bikes / roundabouts on the London news last night and I believe an integrated approach is best anyhow. Each side has to be sympathetic to each other and can't just say that's no good for us. 

Most people both have bikes and cars anyhow.

I have also thought that one day it would be good to have blue bike strips on the hampton Kingston bridge loops. Happy biking

As a cyclist - I would (should?) agree on this - except on roads like Summer road with cars parked up I end up having to go over the humps regardless!

And I see some cyclists going to the middle to avoid them - which is a recipe for disaster at times!

Personally I hate speed bumps but the narrow ones are the worst as they make no difference to some cars (like 4x4's etc) - which just zoom over them. We end up having some small cars holding up a queue of larger ones which then will over take them (I had to take evasive action as a car overtook another car on summer road just the other week and came head on at me!!).

And the narrow humps seem to create pockets where water collects and therefore deteriorate quicker

If they really really has to be speed bumps then personally I think the table ones are best...

I don't mind table tops either - the question is how can we get them changed. If the council says they have no money, there are I am sure loads of fete opportunities to raise some cash.

I could be wrong but I seem to recall its astonishingly expensive to replace these, seem to recall a figure of circa £10,000 per bump to remove them once before. I know it seems absurd

I like the narrow humps better than flat ones, because people slow down more for narrow/taller hump, so that they don't damage their cars.  Even I, in my little car, can drive over the flat table humps, no problem.  But, the narrow humps in Thames Ditton, should be as "tall" as the ones down the road by Esher Railway Station.  You really have to slow down big time for those  - which is, after all, the whole purpose of them - or you will damage your car.

When Surrey schedule this job I'm sure they will consider the humpery and Peter Hickman will keep an eye on it.  I share the view that table-type humps across the road are more effective and give fewer maintenance problems, provided that drainage problems can be avoided at either end

If we have to have the humps (rather than other more elegant/innovative speed reduction solutions) , then I am in favour of Holland Park wide humps. The current lot damage your car, even for those that do slow down, especially with the potholes that are normally next to them.  We also have far too many - e.g.  summer road.    I think the state of our roads and these awful humps should make it to the top of Peter Hickman's list...

Does anyone else posting in this thread live on a road in Thames Ditton which has humps?  I do and I don't care about people's cars - I only care about living on a road that is safe for the elderly and children (and me) to cross.  If drivers drive their cars at 20 mph, which is the law in the humped areas, then their cars will be undamaged.  Only drivers breaking the law will get their cars damaged.  >:(

Yes, mg, I do and I agree that safety is the most important thing - the rat-run effect has reduced a lot since the humps.

However, I don't agree that you can only damage your car at over 20mph. Where the humps are all broken up even at low speed there is a lot of shaking and juddering which will do the suspension no good at all.  I also worry about the effect on property - when lorries go over the humps near me I can sometimes feel the house shake!

So while I wouldn't support removing them, I do think that the flat table type are a better option.

However, I have been told that there are no plans to completely refurbish or replace the humps, certainly not before the High Street resurfacing mooted  for 2014/2015! So it will be a continuation of ineffectual chuck-some-tarmac-at-it repairs until at least then, it seems.

I agree about house shaking tdres and certainly don't support humps being removed.  I would need to see evidence that table humps slowed down traffic as much as other humps before I felt happy about changing the ones done my road.

I have seen flat bits to the side of humps in Kingston, but theyare just as useful as many cycle lanes - cars just park over these so called facilities!

I could name a lot of roads which need fixing. I cycle to and from London every day and have tosay that the worst part of the trip is when I get accross hampton court and follow that back road between East Molesey and Marneys Inn. Chestnut Ave is very treacherous and I am astonished that some contractor put a few blobs of tar into about 25% of the potholes and left the rest untouched. Hope Pter gets on the case and get this sorted.

Not sure how effective the table ones are. Personally I slow right down to navigate them.

BUT I do know that the 'square' ones have absolutely no effect at all on larger cars, vans etc. when there are no cars parked on the road.

You only need to walk on summer road for say 10-15 minutes and I guarantee some large car / 4x4 / etc will come whizzing past at well over 30mph and not even slow down for the humps when they are able to 'straddle' them... 

I've been over taken whilst doing 20mph in my car on Summer road on more than one occasion. I do admitedly have to slow right down over the hump (10ish mph) but I am very quick at getting back up to speed... not quick enough for some though!

yup, on summer road last week, I had a long haired maniac in a Vauxhall frontera behind & screaming at me as I went over the speedbumps at circa 20mph, he followed me the whole way literally yelling his head off. If I hadnt had my kids on board I would have said something.

Mind you, to be fair, I'd be screaming too if I drove a frontera.

I thought the following was the case, and checked with Peter Hickman on Friday night:

Surrey (for some reason known only to Highways dept) don't go for the table-type speed humps that taper off close to the kerb.  Instead they install the table type that goes from kerb to kerb.  (I suppose (but this is just my supposition) that they prefer those because pedestrians with prams / wheelchairs can use them to cross the road?)

However, as I had suspected, the kerb-to-kerb variety of hump requires a drainage gulley at each end so that surface water is not dammed up by the hump.  This (a) makes them much more expensive to install and (b) from our experiences elsewhere in the vill, the blasted gullies get blocked up - often by Elmbridge street sweepers sweeping autumn leaves into the things - so there's another problem.....

I shouldn't laugh as that makes me a bit of a car snob... which I don't think I am but still

;D

(apologies to anyone on here who owns a Frontera - I think they have suffered loads of stick when they were once voted the worst car by owners in some top gear mag years ago... I personally have never had the err pleasure of driving one... don't think I ever will either!!)

It does not take a rocket scientist to surmise that the kerb to kerb ones are generally better built and thought out than the square ones so I am not surprised that they cost more than the crappy square ones.

BUT - when considering the overall 'budget' for the humps I would be interested to see how the lifetime costs of a kerb to kerb hump vs teh square one compares. And this 'cost' should include not only maintenance costs but compensation paid out when the square bumps degrade and potholes form in its vicinity (though how to attribute these costs will probably prove impossible).

I appreciate the need for speed bumps (though personally I hate them) - but when they are not effective against a lot of cars then what is the point?


I think we have had this debate before though on the whole 20mph zone, merits of the square bumps - and not sure what we can do ? Anyone got any suggestions/ideas? 

I sadly don't...