Key Points
- Residents in the upmarket Blackheath area of south‑east London have accused Labour‑run Lewisham Council of installing so‑called “socialist speed bumps” that they say disproportionately damage high‑end vehicles.
- The controversy centres on newly refurbished speed bumps along Lee Terrace and Belmont Hill in Blackheath, where residents say the traffic‑calming measures are too high and harsh for performance and luxury cars.
- Architect Andrew Thorp, 59, told a national newspaper that his Mercedes C‑Class had suffered significant damage after scraping on multiple bumps, prompting him to personally commission an engineering survey of the road humps.
- As quoted in that coverage, Mr Thorp argued that residents are “paying for the bumps with our council tax, and then paying for the damage to our cars”, adding that “it’s as if they are socialist speed bumps.”
- Mr Thorp’s commissioned survey allegedly found that 12 out of 15 speed bumps exceeded Lewisham Council’s own stated height standard, with five recorded as between 100mm and 105mm compared with the council’s usual benchmark of 80mm.
- Resident Steve Emmott, 67, said he is forced to drive his Ferrari at an estimated 3–5 miles per hour over each hump on Lee Terrace and Belmont Hill, claiming that if he attempts to straddle the bumps, he risks ripping out the underside of his car.
- The council has firmly disputed these residents’ claims, stating that the newly installed or refurbished speed bumps comply with national regulations and were introduced as part of a wider scheme to enforce new 20mph speed limits in the area.
- Lewisham Cyclists, a local cycling campaign group, has also raised concerns, warning that driver behaviour in response to the bumps could endanger riders, including by motorists cutting in front of cyclists to navigate the humps.
- A council spokesperson has maintained that the speed humps meet Department for Transport standards, but acknowledged that three of the 15 near Belmont Hill and Lee Terrace required adjustment, which has since been carried out at the contractor’s expense.
- The council has stressed that speed control remains imperative on these stretches of road because of the proximity of Belmont Hill to a school and Lee Terrace to a hospital, stating that road safety is its overriding priority.
Blackheath (South London News) January 14, 2026 – A Labour‑run London borough is facing a backlash from affluent residents after newly refurbished traffic‑calming measures in Blackheath were branded “socialist speed bumps”, amid claims they damage luxury cars and exceed council height standards, which the authority robustly denies while insisting the humps comply with national safety regulations.
How did the ‘socialist speed bumps’ row in Blackheath begin?
The latest row over road design in south‑east London emerged after residents in Blackheath complained that fresh or refurbished speed bumps on Lee Terrace and Belmont Hill were damaging the undercarriages of high‑end vehicles, particularly performance and prestige models. As reported by Frankie Hills for South London News, the Labour‑run Lewisham Council was subsequently accused of installing “socialist speed bumps” in an upmarket area, a phrase that quickly captured public and media attention.
According to the report attributed to Frankie Hills, residents’ frustrations grew after several drivers alleged that the shape and height of the new humps meant expensive cars were more likely to scrape or sustain damage, even when travelling slowly. This discontent set the stage for a broader debate about whether the council’s road‑safety measures were appropriately designed or unfairly penalised owners of luxury vehicles.
What are residents alleging about damage to luxury cars?
As reported by the Telegraph and cited by South London News, architect Andrew Thorp, 59, said his Mercedes C‑Class suffered repeated scraping over the newly refurbished speed bumps, prompting him to commission a specialist engineering survey of the humps on Lee Terrace and Belmont Hill. Mr Thorp is quoted as stating that residents are “paying for the bumps with our council tax, and then paying for the damage to our cars”, before adding the pointed remark: “It’s as if they are socialist speed bumps.”
Mr Thorp further argued, according to the same coverage, that the design of the bumps disproportionately affects owners of more expensive vehicles, including Audi, Mercedes and Tesla cars, suggesting they are “exclusively” more susceptible to scraping and undercarriage damage. His comments have underscored a perception among some residents that the road layout unfairly penalises drivers of high‑value cars, even when they say they are driving carefully and within the limit.
What did the commissioned survey claim about the height of the speed bumps?
In the reporting that drew on Mr Thorp’s survey, the architect claimed that 12 out of 15 speed bumps measured in his commissioned engineering assessment exceeded Lewisham Council’s own height limit. The survey allegedly found that five of the bumps registered between 100mm and 105mm high, significantly above the council’s stated standard of 80mm for such traffic‑calming features.
As relayed in South London News’ account of the Telegraph’s reporting, Mr Thorp’s findings have been used by residents as evidence that the council’s scheme was not implemented in line with its own guidelines. Those dissatisfied with the works argue that if the alleged measurements are accurate, the bumps not only risk vehicle damage but could also raise questions over compliance with broader regulatory expectations, even as formal national standards are invoked by the council in its defence.
How are other motorists responding, including drivers of high‑performance cars?
Another resident, 67‑year‑old Steve Emmott, described his experience driving along the same stretch of road, stating that he has to move at a crawl when using his Ferrari on Lee Terrace and Belmont Hill. Quoted in coverage referenced by South London News, Mr Emmott said he must slow down to between 3 and 5 miles per hour before each hump, warning that “If I try to straddle them, I will take the underside of my car out.”
Mr Emmott’s account has been cited by local and national media as emblematic of how high‑performance and low‑slung vehicles can be more severely affected by steep or tall traffic‑calming features, even when adhering to lower speed limits. Together with Mr Thorp’s claims, these testimonies have contributed to a narrative among some residents that the scheme, while presented as a safety measure, has inadvertently created an uneven impact based on the type and value of vehicles using the route.
How has Lewisham Council responded to the allegations?
Lewisham Council has firmly rejected suggestions that the speed bumps are out of step with legal requirements, insisting instead that they comply with national regulations governing traffic‑calming infrastructure. As reported by Frankie Hills in South London News, the council has stated that the changes to Lee Terrace and Belmont Hill were carried out several months ago as part of a broader scheme to enforce new 20mph speed limits across the area.
A spokesperson for Lewisham Council, quoted in the same coverage, said that the bumps are within national guidelines and conform to standards set by the Department for Transport, thereby contesting the measurements and conclusions presented in Mr Thorp’s privately commissioned survey. However, the council did acknowledge that three of the 15 speed bumps near Belmont Hill and Lee Terrace required adjustments, which have since been made at the contractor’s expense, suggesting there were at least some localised issues with the initial installation.
Why does the council say speed control is necessary in this location?
Despite the criticism from some motorists, Lewisham Council has emphasised that the primary purpose of the scheme is to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety in a sensitive part of the borough. As set out in comments reported by South London News, the authority has highlighted the proximity of Belmont Hill to a school and Lee Terrace to a hospital as key reasons for prioritising traffic‑calming measures and a 20mph limit.
The council has argued that slower traffic is essential to protect children, patients, staff and other vulnerable road users in the area, maintaining that road safety is the overriding consideration in the design and maintenance of the bumps. While acknowledging limited remedial work on three humps, the authority’s position remains that the scheme as a whole is both necessary and compliant with Department for Transport standards.
What concerns have Lewisham Cyclists raised about the scheme?
It is not only motorists who have expressed unease about the new layout: Lewisham Cyclists, a local cycling advocacy group, has also voiced discontent with the way drivers may respond to the humps. According to South London News’ account, the group has warned that motorists could create severe danger for passers‑by, including cyclists, if they attempt to cut in front of riders or make sudden manoeuvres to avoid the bumps.
The cyclists’ group has suggested that the design of the scheme and the behaviour it encourages could increase conflict between road users if drivers seek smoother paths around the humps, particularly on narrower sections where cyclists may already feel vulnerable. Their intervention broadens the debate from car damage alone to wider questions about how traffic‑calming measures interact with cycling safety and pedestrian protection in busy urban streets.
Do the residents’ claims conflict with national regulation and local standards?
The dispute in Blackheath draws a clear distinction between two sets of claims: on one side, Mr Thorp’s survey asserts that a majority of the bumps exceed Lewisham’s own 80mm height benchmark, with several allegedly measuring over 100mm; on the other, the council maintains that the scheme complies with national rules and Department for Transport standards. This tension raises questions about how local standards, contracted works and national regulations align in practice, and about who bears responsibility if discrepancies arise.
While the council’s acknowledgement that three bumps required adjustment may lend weight to the argument that at least some installations were initially out of specification, the authority’s broader insistence on compliance with national guidelines underscores its view that the scheme is fundamentally sound. Residents, by contrast, point to their experiences and the commissioned measurements as evidence that the balance between safety and usability has not yet been properly struck on these particular roads.
What wider issues does the ‘socialist speed bumps’ debate highlight for London?
The Blackheath row illustrates how street‑design decisions in London can become flashpoints for wider debates about class, car ownership and the distribution of public‑realm benefits and burdens. The use of the phrase “socialist speed bumps” by Mr Thorp, reported through national and local media, highlights how some residents perceive traffic‑calming schemes as targeting certain groups of drivers, particularly owners of high‑end vehicles, even when councils insist their only aim is safety.
At the same time, the involvement of Lewisham Cyclists and the council’s emphasis on protection near schools and hospitals reflect a broader policy direction in many UK cities, where lower speed limits and physical calming measures are promoted to reduce casualties and encourage walking and cycling. The Blackheath case shows how implementing those policies at street level can generate sharp local tensions, especially where residents feel the physical design of the measures has not adequately considered the full range of vehicles and road‑user behaviour.
