speed blamed without proof.

[stooz]

www.thisisworcestershire.co.uk/worcestershire/worcester/news/WEN_NEWS_LATEST0.html

paper said:

A STRETCH of road that has claimed two lives in five years will claim more unless speed limits are enforced, claim residents. Crown East has seen at least nine serious accidents in recent years, but the new calls come after a woman was cut from her Ford Fiesta with suspected spinal injuries following a collision with an articulated lorry at 7.30am yesterday. She had been pulling out of a side road on to the A44, which was named as one of the 10 most dangerous roads in Britain by the AA in 2001. The road has a 40mph limit and, though speed is not understood to have been a factor yesterday, residents say 60mph is common. "The visibility from the junction is poor and, if a car comes past at 40mph, it's just about okay," said Chris Woodyatt, who lives nearby. "But, if they're any faster, it's very dangerous. We've been told it doesn't meet the criteria for a camera. "The area warrants a lower limit, a camera, or police presence." Terence Reese, of Bath Road, Worcester, was jailed for four years earlier this year for killing 64-year-old Mervyn Walker in a collision near Crown East, in 2001. Since the first fatality, in 1998, there has been an average of two serious accidents in the village each year. "Something needs to be done soon otherwise more people will die," said resident John Smith. Malvern Hills District Council put in a 40mph limit, in 2000, and raised the road to increase visibility in 2001. A spokesman for the Highways Partnership said the council had no plans for further safety measures.

anyone spot the inacurate reporting? feel free to send a letter to the paper from the link at the bottom.

Here is a few starters:
public can not tell speed of cars by just looking. You need equipment

speed was not believed to be a factor this time.

Im sorry for the ladies injuries, but cameras would not have helped.

Im fuming at such blatant shock tactic reporting with no fact or investigation.

This is the front page of the printed version.

>>> Edited by stooz on Thursday 16th September 11:51

[gh0st]

Well if they are not careful they might get what they wish for...

[gone]

gh0st said:

Well if they are not careful they might get what they wish for...

And then whinge like Fcuk when the inevitable Section 172 notice lands on their doorstep from either the camera they have asked for or another camera in some far off place that has similar problems to their own when they happen to be driving through it one day 'making progress'

[Jinx]

article said:

She had been pulling out of a side road on to the A44,

I think that might have been the error then.

[V8 Archie]

paper said:

"The visibility from the junction is poor and, if a car comes past at 40mph, it's just about okay," said Chris Woodyatt, who lives nearby. Malvern Hills District Council ... raised the road to increase visibility in 2001.

The obvious question would be "how did she not see an articulated lorry?". If she did, then the question becomes "what in God's name was she doing pulling out so close in front of it?".

While she undoubtedly paid a fairly high price, the meagre facts presented suggest that it was all her own work.

[mondeoman]

paper said:

"The visibility from the junction is poor and, if a car comes past at 40mph, it's just about okay," said Chris Woodyatt, who lives nearby. "But, if they're any faster, it's very dangerous. We've been told it doesn't meet the criteria for a camera. "The area warrants a lower limit, a camera, or police presence." ....... ....... "Something needs to be done soon otherwise more people will die," said resident John Smith. Malvern Hills District Council put in a 40mph limit, in 2000, and raised the road to increase visibility in 2001. A spokesman for the Highways Partnership said the council had no plans for further safety measures. cos they wont make any money out of anything but a camera

Crys out for re-engineering, not bloody cameras and speed limits!

[stooz]

Im just as shocked at the style of reporting its unfactual and biased. feel free to write a letter::

here