Speed bumps on Koeberg Road, Milnerton, Cape Town

Dear signatory

Thank you so much for your support of my petition for speed bumps on Koeberg Road.

After several emails back and forth between myself and Garth Elliot, Head of Transport Network Development, he has decided to decline my request for the installation of speed bumps on Koeberg Road at the school pedestrian signalised crossings and has referred me to Traffic Enforcement & Education.

A few excerpts from our correspondence:

**********************

me:
The traffic lights are not working as "people" are just jumping the red lights and in so doing, mowing down children left, right and centre, including my boyfriend's son yesterday morning.

So many innocent children are losing their lives and being injured on this horrible stretch of road.

Mr Elliot:
Koeberg Road is a higher order numbered metropolitan route (M5) which was intended to fulfil a mobility function in the broader Metropolitan context. It is furthermore a designated public transport route.

In terms of the City of Cape Town’s Traffic Calming Policy, the installation of traffic calming measures on a route of this nature is not supported. From a Transport Engineering perspective, a signalised pedestrian crossing is deemed to be a more appropriate measure on a route of this nature, so as to accommodate safe crossing by pedestrians while maintaining a reasonable level of mobility.

As alluded to in your email, the City has already installed a signalised pedestrian crossing near Ysterplaat Primary School, in an effort to improve the safety of vulnerable road users at that point. We are currently in the process of installing another signalised crossing at the library and clinic further north along Koeberg Road.
It is however acknowledged that the success of any traffic signal is largely dependent on voluntary legal compliance by the motoring public.

I note from your email below that a lack of voluntary compliance is evident to some degree - with dire consequences. I therefore refer this matter to Mr Merrington of the City Traffic Services Department for direct response regarding possible law enforcement interventions which could assist in this regard.

Me:
Thank you for your detailed feedback and inclusion of Mr Merrington.

I understand that their are certain legal and financial restrictions related to traffic calming on this particular stretch of road, but there has to be something done! We cannot put a price on the head of a child in order to accommodate drivers who are clearly abusing this road anyway.

As you have agreed, the efficacy of the signalised crossings is dependent on compliant drivers, which are few and far between on this stretch. Little Mario was struck by someone flying through the red light at one of these crossings just two days ago. They are a waste of time and tax payers' money, in my opinion.

Either this stretch of road needs to be "re-zoned" (if I can call it that) or your traffic calming policies need to change for this type of road or they need to be case specific. There are hundreds of innocent children just trying to get to school alive and in one piece.

I am already in contact with the traffic department and have requested more statistics on MVA's involving pedestrians along this stretch. I can forward that to you when I receive it.

If you read some of the comments that people are posting as they sign my petition, you will see that many of them agree regarding the recklessness of the drivers there. Taxi's are making their own lanes and even bypassing cars that have stopped at the signalised crossings and wiping these poor kids out.

I will be in contact with you again. I am sorry to say that I will not be able to let this go.

Mr Elliot:
Dear Ms Edwards

While your frustration with lawlessness driver behaviour is understood, the requested measure is simply not the correct solution in this instance. Please note that this is not a financially based decision, it rather relates to practical operational factors including, but not limited, to the following:
· This route is intended to fulfil a metropolitan mobility function that extends beyond the immediate & surrounding residential suburbs.
· Traffic calming is not recommended on Public Transport routes due to the discomfort to passengers when traversing raised traffic calming measures (vertical movements are amplified at the rear of the bus).

A petition is not likely to result in this road being downgraded, as its current function is historically entrenched into the daily lives of numerous Capetonians, as is evidenced by the congestion encountered there in peak periods (which would be intensified by traffic calming).

I am by no means suggesting that you let this go and understand your desire to ensure that some action take place to address non-adherence of the relevant road rules. It must however also be borne in mind that not all road-users are guilty in this regard, whereas traffic calming tends to indiscriminately inconvenience all users of an affected roadway - hence it being deemed inappropriate for implementation on higher order mobility routes.

In this instance the issue remains that of law enforcement – hence my referral to Mr Merrington for response on possible ways forward in this regard. There are various options he might consider, I will however leave it to him advise on the way forward in this regard.

Me:
Dear Garth

Thank you once again for your response, it is very much appreciated.

I am very glad that you mentioned that yours was not a financially based decision, because it has inspired us to suggest another solution. Our solution will only affect those who would usually run the red light at the signalised crossings. Booms.

High visibility, strong booms at the pedestrian crossings intended mostly for the children on their way to and from school.

The booms will need to be highly visible with lights that can be seen from a distance, day and night. A flashing warning light at a distance before the crossing, as prescribed by law, will warn motorists of a possibly closed boom. This warning light will run constantly, not only when the button is pushed at the crossing.

The booms will need to be constructed in such a way that their strength will cause serious damage to a vehicle if a motorist tries to run down the boom, and will withstand a light knock here and there. You could even install hidden cameras in the booms to catch anyone intentionally damaging or trying to run down the booms.

In the event of a power failure, a large, solar-recharged back-up battery will kick in.

The booms are activated electronically and work in conjunction with the traffic lights so they do not need to be manned, much like the booms at our railway level crossings.

Booms will only be down when the lights are red, so they will not affect traffic any differently to how the red lights should affect the traffic. It's so simple. It only affects those who would usually ignore the signals.

Bus/Taxi passengers will not be affected because they are supposed to stop at the red light anyway.

You are apparently prepared to put more signalised crossings on this route, which means according to your policies, signalised crossings are an acceptable means of stopping traffic for pedestrians on this type of road. The only difference now would be that a boom would come down, no more or less often than when the light is red.

Mr Merrington will not need to lose any staff, much needed in other areas.

You don't need to downgrade the road. People can speed to their heart's content between the booms, but at the booms they stop.

Our suggestion does not calm the traffic, but simply enforces the stopping at existing signalised pedestrian crossings.

Our mission from the start was to protect our children, not just to slow down the traffic. This way the traffic flow will not be affected and our children are protected!

A death does not only affect the dead, it affects everybody left behind to pick up the pieces. And some never recover from the mental trauma of even just witnessing one of these incidents, even if it is not fatal. Little Mario's sister, Taytum, witnessed her brother bouncing off the bonnet, flying through the air and landing several meters away. She thought he was dead, but still had the clarity of mind to get the details of the vehicle, including the vehicle registration number, colour, make and model.

The closer we get to an implemented solution, the fewer young, innocent lives will be lost in the name of convenience for all users.

An unenforced law is not a law, it's just words on paper.

Wouldn't we all sleep better at night knowing we have all come together to save lives?

I am sure you have some amazing engineers that can make this happen and I look forward to your response to our suggestion.

Mr Elliot:
Dear Ms Edwards

There is a legal framework within which Municipal Transport Engineers must work. Besides being inappropriate for use at pedestrian crossings on Koeberg Road, the provision of booms is not a fool-proof solution. This is evidenced by the tragic Buttskop Rail level crossing incident in which numerous scholars were killed.

There is a reasonable limit to which engineering measures can be deployed to address driver behaviour problems. From an engineering and compliance with standards perspective, signalised pedestrian crossings are the correct measure in this instance, exceeding minimum engineering standards (in the public interest). In relevant road safety theory, there is a reference to the three “E’s” namely; Engineering, Education and Enforcement. The Engineering aspect has satisfactorily been addressed by the provision of signalised pedestrian crossings, Education and Enforcement also have a role to play in this equation – the relevant parties have been copied into this communication.

From an engineering perspective we will however investigate the layout at the signalised pedestrian crossings along Koeberg road to ensure that no road safety related deficits have crept in since construction (e.g. signs that may have been knocked down). Apart from addressing any shortfalls which may become evident, I do not envisage any drastic changes to these pedestrian crossings – since they were recently built to relevant safety standards. (Deon / Yoni/ Jade – please investigate and action as necessary & provide me with feedback).

I now leave it to my colleagues in the City Traffic Services Department to evaluate possible supportive interventions / measures as they deem fit and to respond advising on the recommended way forward in this specific instance (Messrs Merrington & Swanepoel for Enforcement and Education respectively).

Me:
Thank you once again for your response. I truly and honestly appreciate it very much and I don't want to take up too much more of your time, but it would be a disservice to these innocent children for me not to respond.

You mentioned that you work on the 3 E's. I also have 3 E's that come to mind. Excuses, Excuses, Excuses. With all due respect intended, because I know that you are simply doing your job as best you know how).

You gave a very bad example when you mentioned the Humphreys case. Humphreys is the type of "motorist" that we are trying to protect these kids from. It was not the boom at fault there, it wasn't even the motorist, because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of "Humphreys" out there and they are all just accidents waiting to happen. It was your 3 E's at fault.

Engineering: if the correct boom was installed, long enough (in physical dimension) to prevent people just driving around it, that "accident" would not have happened.

Education: clearly his level of education leaves much to be desired, as well as his ability to judge distance vs. time.

Enforcement: Not even worth mentioning, as it was non existent in that case

So you will see, the boom's efficacy or appropriateness was not the issue in that case.

You say there is "a reasonable limit to which engineering methods can be deployed". Call me crazy, but I have a limit to how many more kids must die or be hurt, before your limits must be extended. My limit is zero.

No more human beings should lose their lives on this "death stretch".

What you are basically saying, in layman's terms, is that it is just way too much effort and you are just not willing to do it and you keep referring to Mr Merrington. I mean this with the utmost respect, but I can hear the words "manpower...manpower" and I haven't even corresponded directly with the gentleman yet. I only say that because it's all we hear on the news, "there's just not enough manpower, budget, budget, budget"

Your signalised crossings are ineffective! Fact. You could install 100 of them along this stretch and it will not help. All it will do is slow down the traffic.

Give me one boom, Garth, just one to start with.

Until our solution is put into a practical, real life case study, you will never convince me that it is "inappropriate".

How many lives have been saved by booms at railway level crossings that we don't even think about? You only remembered the Humphrey's case because so many children lost their lives in one foul swoop. It is only human of you to remember the negative memories linked to a word. I say boom, you think Humphreys. Why can you not associate the word "boom" with the words "life savers"?

You refused the speed bumps because of the traffic calming policies and I fully accept that. But I will not accept your excuse for not at least trying the booms. They have no affect on the traffic. Other than your "legal framework", there is nothing holding you back now.

Use your powers, Garth. Show Cape Town, show the Western Cape why we voted you into power here again. Show us all that you are willing to go above and beyond the call of duty here.

Give me one boom, Garth. Please. It's our opportunity to prove our cases, you and I.

Mr Elliot:
Dear Ms Edwards

Mr Swanepoel from Traffic Services responded internally as per attachment – relevant actions in terms of education and enforcement will therefore follow shortly.

In terms of relevant standards, as elaborated upon below, we will not be implementing booms at signalised pedestrian crossings on the M5, Koeberg Road.

If you have further queries in this regard, I propose that you reply to me only (mindful of those unnecessarily copied in) and I will arrange for a meeting between yourself, myself and my colleagues from Traffic Services to discuss your concerns and possible solutions face to face.

Me:
This is my final email with all cc'ed and I apologise for any inconvenience caused to others by our correspondence.

Thank you for all your responses. I am very grateful for your time and effort.

I just wanted to make one final suggestion and I only need a yes or no, as to whether it might be a consideration.

Pedestrian footbridges.

Please advise.

*********************

So, as you can read, I gave it a good try, but the speed bumps will not be installed and I have to close this particular petition.

Not giving up on my mission to help these children though, so look out for me! :)

Kind regards & thanks

Bridget