Do what we do. Blow your horn every time you go over a speed bump. We think it will eventually annoy the neighbors so much they might actually decide that a flat road is preferable to the constant blaring. At least we think that if enough people do it it will have an effect.

Paul, North Vancouver, BC Canada

Two Issues I would like clarification on :

(1) Why is it that our similarly Populated European Neighbours do not need the same levels of Speed Humps, Speed Cameras or other Gimmicks to Keep their Road Deaths as Low as the UKs ?

(2) How is it that same European Countries have exponentially Better Quality Road Surfaces nationally yet manage to charge their citizens much less overall than the UK Government charges its citizens ?

Until we all as a group start asking these questions and demanding answers and accountability for all the Billions raised from Road & Fuel Duties, we deserve what we get.

I have noticed a trend with Politicians in the UK

" Squeeze the public as hard as you can to see if they squeak. If they dont, squeeze a little more " .

The only other explanation is that we are a nation of Useless and Corrupt People without the ability to keep up with our European Cousins on the most basic of Public Services such as Road & Transport Infastructure.

Obi, LONDON, UK

Very interesting. Now, will councils get rid of them? Of course not. Because we have backward-thinking imbeciles putting them in, putting up speed cameras, perpetuating the insanity that speed kills - but bad driving, walking out in front of cars, buses pulling out suddenly - don't. Obsessed with the 7% of accidents caused by speed. Ignoring the 93% that are not. The 93% that road humps do NOTHING about.

And as they stay, I'll continue to hear the roar of engines, the skidding of tyres as the driver slams on the break, the BANG-CLUNK of the car as it goes over the hump, the screeching of tyres and engine as it screeches away. Every evening, nearly every car that passes by my home.

Laura Roberts, London, UK

First, those humps that have gaps in them for buses are discriminating against drivers of small cars. Having just replaced two springs on a C3, I slow to a crawl to pass any speed hump now. This annoys other drivers -creating congestion and additional pollution.
Secondly, there is a trend around here to create raised zebra crossings. I have gone over the crossings many times before realizing that I didn't look for pedestrians. I am looking at how to negotiate the humps. As a pedestrian, I've had cars go through these crossings while I've been on them. I view such crossings as unsafe and avoid using them as a pedestrian. The same goes for placing speed cameras, average or otherwise, within 50m of a pedestrian crossing.
The witlessness of some so-called road safety policies is staggering. I have no intention of driving dangerously or carelessly and try to afford pedestrians great care, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to do because of these initiatives.
And try being a cyclist!

Paul, Nottingham, UK

Trying to make it "safe" to get run over by lower speed limits is daft. 0% of people who don't walk out in front of traffic get killed by it!

It's about pedestrians took resposibility for their own actions and time jaywalking was an offence as it is in the States.

M Polgreen, Solihull, UK

And the cost of installing cameras and removing road humps that have already cost £150,000 and repairing the road , would be £250,000 plus I guess £100,000. Total cost £500,000 plus more intrusive cameras to at least keep the UK well ahead of the rest of the world in the nosey Parker stakes.

Most of the roads in Sheffield seem to be designed with natural hazards, they are so full of pot holes and poor repairs that no anti-speed bumps are necessary.

And as for the "half metre of snow" Andrew Milner refers to, for most of the UK that never happens and for the rest that it does it is only a few days a year - that does warrant buying a truck instead of a car.

Roger T, West Yorks, England

It is incorrect to compare the emissions from steady speed motoring with that of the stop-start of urban motoring.

A proper comparison is between normal urban motoring with 30mph speed limits, as opposed to a traffic calmed environment of 20mph.

There is a need for properly conducted research on the comparitive effect on vehicle emissions of different speed management regimes, but also the consequential impact on journey length, and modal transfer, principally form cars to pedestrian, cycle or public transport modes.

This is an important issue that deserves proper scientific study, rather than be reduced to an eristic debate.

Robert Huxford, London, UK

Before jumping in to castigate 4x4s, keep in mind that relatively small passenger cars such as Subaru Impreza are four-wheel-drive. So please don't say 4x4 when you mean SUV or off-roader. Wait till you wake up to half-a-metre of snow. An off-roader will suddenly begin to look far more attractive.

Andrew Milner, KL, Malaysia

I find that anticipating the speed reduction needed when coming up to humps stops the drastic breaking; put your clutch in and cruise up. Keep the low speed between humps and hey presto you don't waste the energy by accellerating and breaking. I also find that using hypermiling techniques work wonders - I get an extra 50% out of the same amount of petrol as the official MPG on my car (how many people even get the official rate?). Saves a third on my petrol and CO2 costs a year. Its bad driving that is the problem, not the humps.

nick ayres, huddersfield, UK

I am a cyclist and I pay 'road tax' for my car even when I am not using it but cycling instead.
'Road Tax' is however a licence to use a vehicle not a tax and it is not spent on the roads. It goes to a general fund that pays for many different things.
I would happily pay a pro rata license for my bicycle based on the amount of pollution it produces and the risk of death or injury to other road users.

dexey, Birmingham, England

Speed bumps have been installed because reckless speeding by selfish drivers is rife. Trafic policing has become virtually non-existent and reliance on fixed speed cameras as a solution is insufficient as they only have a temporary and localised effect on speeding drivers. Average speed cameras would be better, but proactive traffic policing better still.

Ben Garside, Loughborough, Leics

Many road humps are just too big. Instead of making bumps that force us to drive at 20 mph they build enormous tank traps that are unsafe to negotiate at any speed. Then, as these tank traps begin to fall apart, they become even more dangerous.

Of course, the best way to keep cars out of residential streets is to improve the main roads.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Tell you what, pedestrians and bicycles can have equal rights on the road when they pay equal amounts of road tax, instead of none at all

Simon, Manchester,

I was going to buy a Lambourgini until I realised it wouldn't go over the humps in my road.

colin, london, england

we would have 0 road deaths if the limit was 5 miles per hour and 40 on the motorway. Let's do that, and forget educating children, drink drivers and sleepdrivers all together!

TV, Preston,

The anti car sentiment here is vivid, I use my 4x4 for business and to comute, I like a big car, I need a large car because I am a big fella, I get so fed up with people going on and on about 4x4s, its boring, get a life, move on!

I cant fit into a Micra, I dont use Public Transport because its dirty, smelly and full of muppets.

So why dont you all get on with your lives and butt out of mine!

4x4 George, Bexleyheath, UK Kent.

The absence of road humps and speed cameras makes many European countries so much more attractive for businesses whne choosing investment. So you can add loss of employment to the list of negatives resulting from the offending items.

MarkS, Leeds,

Having recently disposed of a rather large car I have since discovered lots more road bumps. My previous car had a wheelbase so wide that it completely straddled all but the full width bumps. The square bumps so common round here can be ignored with ease. Perhaps that's why most 4x4 drivers completely ignore them too? I do find that I accelerate harder between bumps now than driving nice and steadily, and the round town consumption of my small car is just as bad as the Bentley was!

Brian, Farnham, UK

Henri, you really do need a 4x4 in Edinburgh don't you.

You may not need to slow down for the bumps, but you'll now kill most 4-6 year old children if you hit them thanks to the raised height of your bonnet being in line with their heads. You're now also 25% more likely to have an accident in your 4x4 and 4 times more likely to kill someone in any car accident that you may have.

Good luck to you...

Neil, UK,

OR teach drivers that roads are for people, whether walking, cycling or driving, and get them to behave.

Dammed if I want my road dominated by idiots stuck in gridlock who are too selfish to commute by train or bike.

Richard, London,

ha! every day I drive on a road where the speed limit is 10mph. and I still have to go over three humps each wat. it is not doing my car any good at all. but at least I know where to send the bill.

jem, london, uk

What is needed is more research into trip generation in urban areas, particularly the "school run". Idling and congested traffic is surely the biggest polluter.

This old road hump chestnut from the AA has not been placed within the context of its overall contribution to traffic pollution in towns and cities

Terry Hawker, L'Absie, France

I'm surprised it has taken so long to come to the blindingly obvious conclusion ... slowing down and then accelerating burns more fuel, than driving at a steady speed - hence the reason why a car's urban fuel consumption figure is always higher.

I think the introduction of average speed cameras is an interesting solution, although it will neither please the human rights lobby because of the big brother implication, nor the environmentalist, who will object to yet more street furniture.

Why not introduce satellite tracking, which monitors vehicle speeds (and penalises for breach of limits) and which can be set up for road tolling as well?

matthew, london,

When the issue was potential damage to motor vehicles, and cost to their owners, it was, "So what else is new?" But claim that speed bumps cause damage to the environment, and you have Authority's attention. Isn't hypocracy the word I'm reaching for?

Andrew Milner, KL, Malaysia

Can they now discover that speed cameras are wrecking the planet please

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

So Grant believes in a death sentence for pedestrains and children if they make a simple mistake, or if a driver makes a mistake? And where did this idea that roads are only for cars come from? Pedestrians (and drivers when they get out of their cars) all have to cross roads, often where there are no facilties to do this. In some areas there are no footways. Cyclists also have equal right to roads. Research has found that reduced speed limits very much encourage cycling and walking - I don't think the AA took this reduced car use into account when calculating their CO2 figures

Sane Rebel, Bristol, Bristol

Whilst researching an article for a magazine I contacted Brighton Council and asked if they had calculated the environmental impact of road humps. I had noticed that cars accelerate between bumps, which adds even more pollutants than the figures quoted in the article. This is not what one would look for outside of schools where they proliferate.

Road humps taken at 20mph can damage cars: tracking is effected which causes premature tyre wear. Dampers also have a problem. 4 x 4s seem to ignore them, often hitting them at a speed comfortably in excess of the limits.

Brighton Council very helpfully sent me details of modern busses.

I am a firm supporter of speed restrictions in and around schools and 20mph seems eminently sensible to me. However, the average speed of vehicles near schools at arrival and departure times can’t be more that two or three mph due to the proliferation of 4 x 4s on narrow residential roads.

Road humps cost and they do not deliver.

Derek Smith, deputy editor TVR Sprint, Brighton, UK

Mr Gifford's figures disagree with a Department of Transport website http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm which says
"If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian's chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to 80% for a child). "

Charles Bockett-Pugh, Sandhurst,

"10 per cent of pedestrians would die when hit by a car at 20mph compared with 50 per cent at 30mph."

What a useless statistic. You might as well say at 1mph no pedestrians will be killed, and instead of starting your engine you can achieve this speed by simply pushing your car down the road, then there will be no emmisions, and this will cut obesity.

I know what your thinking, why are we not doing this already? The answer is simple, because it is ludicrous, just like all the other government policies.

Roads are for cars as pedestrians are for pavements. We dont drive on the pavement so please dont walk in the middle of the road. Mr King would have us all believe that it is 1960 and the children are all in the roads playing hopscotch. This is rubbish, children are either in their bedrooms playing playstation or if over the age of 11, outside shooting eachover. The number one cause of pedestrians dieing is not speeding, its pedistrians not looking before crossing. Enough said.

Grant, London,

Not a problem for me since I bought a 4x4. I just drive straight over them without a second thought.

Henri, Edinburgh , UK

Better still teach children the road is for cars, the pavement for pedestrians, then remove the humps and don't install cameras, thus saving both the environment and £250,000 of tax-payers money.

Les, Southport, England (a country, not a state!)

aaaaahhhhhh......I feel better now...falling out of a window at 50meters height, will get your attention, if you don't land on your head....

Mr Tim, san marcos, U S of A / Ca