Fatality at Cheshire Scamera site

[thegamekeeper]

Just heard that a 23 year local man old lost his life last night at the site of one of the Cheshire Safety Partnership accident black spots. Looking at their own site there are numerous accidents on this stretch of road but only one fatality since january 1998 so there is clearly a potential hazard and I frequently see a scamera van hiding just around a bend at this site gathering revenue.
Surely the money should be spent removing the hazard by safety engineering not merely disenfranchising people by hiding in a van greedily stealing money and probably blaming this tragic loss of life merely on excess speed. Where exactly does the money go, Cheshire Safety Partnership have just had figures published to show they have a virtually 100% success rate in gathering the fines so what do they spend it on and by preaching safety and doing nothing to improve it they must surely feel some responsiblity for the loss of this young life.
For the last month there has been a mobile safety unit gathering revenue in the same spot EVERY day yet their website shows no fatal accidents at this site since they started keeping records and in 6 years only 10 accidents in total and only 2 of those involving serious injury. Strangely this site is a 30mph speed limit through an industrial estate with no road junctions or houses, whilst adjacent to this stretch of road is a village with a pub, garage, houses and several road junctions and the speed limit here is 40 mph. 2 miles away is a stretch of road ( 200 metres long!!!) where last year alone there were 3 accidents involving fatalities, in one of these a 16th century cottage was demolished. This stretch of road is clearly dangerous yet it is not listed on Cheshire Safety Partnerships website as an accident blackspot and I frequently drive along this road (twice a day sometimes) and in 30 years have never seen a speed trap.
Surely it is time for these self financing partnerships to become accountable both for the loss of lives and the seemingly nil investment of the money they steal in improving road safety.

>> Edited by thegamekeeper on Thursday 9th February 18:29

[trackcar]

Good post Steve, I too would love to know where the money goes, there really shoudn't be *any* incident black spots around these days .. never has so much money been taken from motorists and never have they had such a raw deal in value for money terms..

[funkyrobot]

There was a triple fatality at a camera site the other week where I live in Lincolnshire, right outside RAF Cranwell.

Now as anyone who has travelled from Sleaford to Newark via the a17 knows, the section from Cranwell to Leadenham is covered by 4 cameras, three are within about 3 miles of each other and another one is tagged on further down the road just after the hill at Leadenham (I wonder why, downhill and all that!!).

Anyway a car was involved in an accident with two lorries (one was a foreign lorry, I think Polish or something) and the three occupants (mum, dad, youngish child) all died. Very sad indeed. All I know is that the car was sandwiched, nothing more has been heard of this since.

The actual crash site is less than 100 metres from one of the three cameras, the camera in the middle in fact.

I want to know why if this is such a dangerous road, why have Lincs Road Safety Partnership have done nothing more than install these cameras?? They obviously aren't contributing to the safety of the road are they!

>> Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 9th February 18:16

[hanse cronje]

where in cheshire?

[towman]

funkyrobot said:

Anyway a car was involved in an accident with two lorries (one was a foreign lorry, I think Polish or something) and the three occupants (mum, dad, youngish child) all died. Very sad indeed. All I know is that the car was sandwiched, nothing more has been heard of this since. The actual crash site is less than 100 metres from one of the three cameras, the camera in the middle in fact.

Just a guess.......

3 vehicles travelling together at 56mph. 1st truckie brakes hard for 40mph camera. One (or both) travelling behind caught unawares.

Would the accident have happened if the camera hadn`t been there? I doubt it

[BliarOut]

I believe there were three at a fixed scamera site in Essex as well in the last couple of weeks. They don't seem to be doing a very good job, do they

[Alice Cupra]

Can we be expecting a Press Release from SafeSpeed any time soon quoting these cases as proof that "Safety" cameras are simply not up to the job of making roads safer?

Might add weight to the cause......

[deckster]

Alice Cupra said:

Can we be expecting a Press Release from SafeSpeed any time soon quoting these cases as proof that "Safety" cameras are simply not up to the job of making roads safer? Might add weight to the cause......

I really, really hope not. Single accidents like this prove nothing one way or the other and we get quite enough of the scameraships trying to make political capital out of others' misery without sinking to their level.

[safespeed]

deckster said:

Alice Cupra said: Can we be expecting a Press Release from SafeSpeed any time soon quoting these cases as proof that "Safety" cameras are simply not up to the job of making roads safer? Might add weight to the cause...... I really, really hope not. Single accidents like this prove nothing one way or the other and we get quite enough of the scameraships trying to make political capital out of others' misery without sinking to their level.

Right. It'd be a cheap shot. So no PR.

We can easily keep the true moral high ground which is absolutely amazing when you consider the massive - and I mean MASSIVE - resource imbalance.

[shagga]

I agree that any comment back from SS would be a cheap shot and is not the way to go. However is this not something that local people and press could use to get everyone thinking about the wider aspects of road safety. I don't know the roads described but perhaps asking questions about how the roads could be re-engineered and funds taken by the cameras could be used to improve safety and driver awareness would be a more powerfull argument. After all they describe themselves as safety camera partnerships, perhaps now is an oportunity to get them to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something positive to enhance road safety and not just to line their own pockets and contribute to the coffers of the revenue.

[nonegreen]

The way to go is for hundreds of Cheshire people to block the police switchboard with requests for the arrest of the head of the scumrashit pratnership.

[justinp1]

shagga said:

I agree that any comment back from SS would be a cheap shot and is not the way to go. However is this not something that local people and press could use to get everyone thinking about the wider aspects of road safety. I don't know the roads described but perhaps asking questions about how the roads could be re-engineered and funds taken by the cameras could be used to improve safety and driver awareness would be a more powerfull argument. After all they describe themselves as safety camera partnerships, perhaps now is an oportunity to get them to put their money where their mouth is and actually do something positive to enhance road safety and not just to line their own pockets and contribute to the coffers of the revenue.

A good post. The problem has come from the fact that the powers that be have decided that camera are the way forward, thus made the Safety Camera Partnerships, as oppose to Safety Partnerships. They are reviewed and set up solely around the single aim. If they spend money on other more useful methods of reducing accidents, it would have an immediate effect on their figures and thus their proof that they need to exist. Similarly, if it *did* make a difference they would be out of a job!

A self-continuing organisation really. Its just a shame for all the peoples lives that could have been saved through really avoiding accidents in the meantime...

[thegamekeeper]

Interesting to see that this does not even get a mention in the local rag but there is an article on joint initiative between local authority and trading standards cracking down on people advertising their cars at the roadside outside their houses. The joint initiative says they constitute a hazard and a nuisance and they are looking at the anti social behaviour issues associated with such behaviour. They say people found breaking this law will have their cars removed. Which law???. In the same issue of this worthy newspaper they announce a rise of £46 per household in Council Tax because there is a £13 million pound hole in the budget.I could think of a better way of filling the hole.
This is in no way intended to trivialise the tragic but possibly avoided loss of life which instigated this thread

[deva link]

It's distressing that in Cheshire 79 motorists died on county roads in 2005, which is a dozen more than in 2004.

Surely the Camera Partnership should be dissolved?

[jewhoo]

deva link said:

It's distressing that in Cheshire 79 motorists died on county roads in 2005, which is a dozen more than in 2004. Surely the Camera Partnership should be dissolved?

Don't worry, this anomolous result will undoubtedly be run through the spin-machine with the stats being broken down to find a way of showing that certain types of injuries were reduced at scamera sites on country roads, therefore scameras are working.

[Peter Ward]

deva link said:

It's distressing that in Cheshire 79 motorists died on county roads in 2005, which is a dozen more than in 2004. Surely the Camera Partnership should be dissolved?

You will probably find that they didn't die at camera sites. Therefore the logical response is to install more cameras.

[autismuk]

Of course, this is using a definition different to that for placing. "At the camera sites" when it comes to counting accidents *after* the scumera is put there means the centre of the front wheel must line up exactly with the camera ; except if it does, then it's the back wheel.

[Flat in Fifth]

funkyrobot said:

and another one is tagged on further down the road just after the hill at Leadenham

Ah yes the Leadenham bypass camera, the foundations and wiring for which being included in the original build spec for that road ...... allegedly.

The first example I saw in the flesh of a brand new road with a speed camera on it.