Please, read this before saying «yes» to spending our money

Versión en español

On August 29 we received communiqué 163 with a survey about the perceived (but unproven) problem of speeding in the resort. Some of us also received a quite long message from an owner with many years of experience as a road police officer in the UK. Because of its great interest we try to summarize it below.

The survey sent to the owners is meaningless. We have no empirical evidence of speeding in the resort, only subjective assessments and speculation. Despite this, the Committee seems bent on spending a lot of money to counter a problem that may not actually exist. This is not the way to solve it. There is no question of just putting in speed humps.

Where is the data to suggest that this recent spate of accidents was caused by speed? Is there not a problem with alcohol in some drivers, or with their age, especially if they come from left-hand-drive countries?

Before spending considerable amounts of money, we must carry out a proper road survey to determine the real problem.

If it can be established that speeding is the cause of accidents, speed humps are not the only way to mitigate the problem and also pose other problems that owners may not be aware of:

1. Increased noise and vibrations in nearby buildings, in particular from the passage of large vehicles such as rubbish trucks.
2. Speed humps are particularly harmful to the environment as they increase vehicle pollution due to continuous deceleration and acceleration.
3. Possible damage to cars and vehicle tyres.
4. Speed humps annoy all responsible drivers, but rarely deter irresponsible drivers.

There are alternative solutions such as improving speed limit signage. Traffic signs reminding drivers of the maximum permitted speed are more useful than showing the current speed of a vehicle on a display. Improving the location of speedometers is also necessary: it does not make sense to have them on a roundabout.

It appears that the Committee's intention is to survey landowners on whether they would accept highlights per se. More research should be carried out to establish the facts before asking landowners for their opinion on how to mitigate a problem without first establishing the causal relationship.

As the streets of the resort are owned by Murcia City Council, perhaps we should be raising our concerns with them, rather than the Committee with the owners.