Most people like calming measures in their neighbourhoods, the don't like them in other neighbourhoods where they use the rat runs.
Local councillors would not introduce them if they were unpopular the the majority of residents as it would be a sure way to not be elected next time.
I don't like the "traffic calming" measures in my neighbourhood.
You're over optimistic about the power of the ballot box. The point you're making is only valid if the electorate is offered a choice between candidates with differing policies about so-called traffic calming measures. This choice has never been provided except once, about twenty years ago, in the London Borough of Barnet. In the dog days of John Major's government when the Tories were extremely unpopular, a remarkable thing happened. The Tories lost true-blue Barnet at the local election! The incoming alternatives promptly began installing speed humps. During the next local election campaign four years later, Brian Coleman made removing speed humps a major element of the Tory prospectus. The Tories, of course, won and Mr. Coleman had his mandate.
Obviously, the Tories would have re-taken Barnet anyway so little has been proved, but it is possible that if a choice were presented to the electorate, many voters would abandon their usual party loyalties and vote for a candidate who promised to restore roads to their original condition. The collapse of "the red wall" at the last general election demonstrates what is possible when voters are presented with a very clear choice.
