The Stratton-on-the-Fosse traffic calming scheme was introduced in 1992 following considerable concern amongst residents about the speed of vehicles through the village. There had been a number of accidents causing death or injury and a Ministry of Transport enquiry into the situation. In the assessment stage when speed wires were placed across the road, speeds of over 80 mph were regularly recorded, albeit generally at the quieter times. Whilst the problem of speeding had existed for many years in the village, some said since the invention of the internal combustion engine, a solution only became possible by a change of law which allowed measures such as road narrowing to be introduced on the "Queen's Highway".

Somerset County Council designed and tailored the system specifically for the village which then became the first on a "principal route" in the UK to have a traffic calming measures. It immediately attracted enormous interest resulting in a stream of enquiries from councils and individuals all over the Country and even from abroad. It has since been widely copied. It was only realised later that the scheme design was based on the same principle used by the Romans to calm their chariots! So it was that the village scheme on the its Roman built road was only repeating itself.

The scheme is regarded as a success. It consists of nine road narrowings, each giving priority to one way or the other. At both the entry points the priority is given to outgoing traffic. It is by no means perfect, but it was expected to be, but it has reduced the average speed of traffic dramatically compared to what it was before. It slows most of the traffic down most of the time, including the most important times such as when the children and elderly are around.

Opinion within the village is generally supportive, not least because it is the residents who gain the benefit, especially the improved quality of life it has brought (although people might increasingly forget the appalling "freeway" conditions that existed before the scheme). Of those who expressed an opinion against the scheme, most were non-residents who felt inconvenienced by it. Others gave reasons ranging from the sublime ("the police should mount a permanent speed trap") to the ridiculous ("there is no right to stop vehicles speeding if they wish to"). In between these views, there were more moderate opinions expressed about what should have done instead (bypass, speed cameras, speed bumps etc) and that it is dangerous and that it is unaesthetic.

A bypass is a long term and very expensive solution for which funding was not available, however, there is no reason why one should not be considered sometime in the future, but money becomes increasingly scarce. Speed bumps are not permitted on a principal routes. With regard to speed cameras, the problem is that there would probably be only one camera put in and would be shared with many other locations which would operate for about one week in eight in a fixed position (therefore known to the majority of drivers) with an effective range of only about 100 metres. It would also be difficult to know where, in a long linear village such a Stratton, to place the camera. In the light of the experience of other villages such as Chilcompton, the Parish Council has yet to be convinced of the effectiveness of speed cameras although the County Council continues to experiment with them.However, it is likely that eventually improved technology will make cameras the normal means of calming traffic. The benefit of present scheme is that, as a permanent physical barrier, it is effective 24 hours a day over the whole village and not just near the camera box when it is operating. The Police have expressed strong support for the scheme as it is.

A view has been expressed that the scheme has an inherent weakness because it brings opposing vehicles into potential conflict with each other. This has been considered but it is no more so than with other more common traffic regulatory street furniture or traffic movements such as overtaking. Since the scheme was introduced, there has been one fatal accident and one other injury accident both of which occurred at the same southern entry pinch point. Both accidents involved an incoming vehicle ignoring the priority sign and travelling too fast. The driver involved in the fatal accident was prosecuted by the police and it is believed that he had fallen asleep at the wheel. Regrettable though these accidents obviously are, they have to be seen in perspective and in the context of all the traffic movements over the ten years of operation (at about 3000 in each direction each day they now amount to many millions since the scheme started) and they therefore represent a very small accident statistic rate compared to before. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing what serious accidents would have occurred had the scheme not existed but it is likely that some would have involved pedestrian residents as the victims of speeding vehicles.

The main benefits of the scheme are seen to be as follows:

• Dramatic reduction of the average speed of traffic.
  
• Serious accidents have been greatly reduced.
  
• Each pinch point has provided a safer pedestrian crossing place. (The road would never meet the criteria required for pedestrian crossings).
  
• Overtaking has been virtually eliminated within the scheme.
  
• The bow wave effect of speeding HGVs and buses on pedestrians has disappeared. This had been a great concern to elderly residents who were frequently rocked on, and nearly off, their feet by it.
  
• Holiday and large event (eg Bath & West Showground, Glastonbury Pop Festival) extra traffic now passes through virtually unnoticed.
  
• Very few wing mirrors of parked cars are now hit whereas previously this was a common occurrence.
  
• A combination of all the above has had the sum effect of a safer environment and an better quality of life for residents.

The scheme has or may have the following disadvantages:

• A greater risk of head-on collision (although this is not borne out in practice).
  
• It demands greater driver concentration.
  
• The increased signing is unattractive (but necessary for safety reasons).
  
• The scheme has created two blind spots for drivers but both would involve fairly substantial works to eliminate them.

Whatever the weaknesses of the scheme, a realistic and effective alternative has yet to be suggested and the Council does not regard 'no scheme' as an alternative. On the contrary, it believes that the benefits of the present scheme far outweigh the disadvantages and there is reason to believe that the scheme has saved lives and prevented injuries since it was introduced.

In conclusion, the Council would rather not have a traffic calming scheme at all but one is necessary because of driver behaviour and the present scheme seems to be the best on offer. It is by no means perfect but it works well most of the time, including the most important times when the elderly and the young are out and about. If it is dangerous, it has proved to be much less so than the previous situation. Realistic and sensible alternative ideas have not been forthcoming. The present generation of speed cameras has yet to prove itself to be a suitable solution to Stratton's speeding problem although improved technology may eventually make them a better option.

In the meantime, and most relevantly, the Parish Council believes that the village is well equipped to sustain the ever increasing levels and speed of traffic and that the dangers they bring are considerably reduced by the Stratton traffic calming scheme.