Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 05:29

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
The authorities are bereft of any sensible ideas, yet in this case there were several things, other than reducing the speed limit, which could have helped.

I would first ask what, if any, warning signs there were for this particular hazard. Can’t they remove the adverse camber and improve the road surface. Isn’t there something they could do to improve the visibility of the hazard.

But, like elsewhere, is would seem the only option the authorities wish to consider is to reduce the speed limit, however ineffective that is likely to be, since it will seem they are doing something, it will cost them nothing and will provide the police with some further revenue.

They wish to make is so that the most inexperienced and inept driver, in the worst possible conditions and on the worst part of the road can’t possible have an accident. As result thousands of experienced and capable drivers in good conditions and on the best parts of the road will be forced to travel at an unnecessarily reduced speed. If they should marginally exceed the imposed speed limit, while still driving perfectly safely, they are likely to be fined and penalised.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 15:34 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
My apologies to Superintendant Turnbull, which seem critical of him.
He has a letter in this weeks Westmorland Gazette which makes a bit more sense than the earlier articles, and his brief bit on Radio Cumbria.
I fear his earlier pieces were a little rushed, :whip: but my responses were intended to point out the shortcomings of the present regimes in place - which he reports, but does not comment on.

I have also had an email pointing out that the Escort was T-boned with sufficient force to reduce the cars' width to less than 50% - implying that the pensioner was speeding(?).
Does anyone have any idea how an Escort of this age should stand up to side impact? My own car has side airbags, but I have no idea how much force is required to reduce the vehicle to that extent.
I suspect from having once written off an Escort Van at 25 mph, that it is actually very little, as the van was destroyed after I spun gently into a parked MGBGT in icy snow. The MG only suffered minor front end damage, where as the side of the van was crushed to make it impossible to open the door, or move the seat!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 16:02 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Does anyone have any idea how an Escort of this age should stand up to side impact? My own car has side airbags, but I have no idea how much force is required to reduce the vehicle to that extent.

I suspect from having once written off an Escort Van at 25 mph, that it is actually very little, as the van was destroyed after I spun gently into a parked MGBGT in icy snow. The MG only suffered minor front end damage, where as the side of the van was crushed to make it impossible to open the door, or move the seat!

I believe that at a closing speed in excess of 100mph, i.e. 50mph for each vehicle, which I understand was within the speed limit, there would have been more than sufficient energy to cause the damage to the Escort. I understand most of the reinforcement of a vehicle is at the front and that the sides of vehicles are comparatively weak, particularly if hit square on. It may depend of the age of the Escort, since I understand newer vehicles have been strengthened on the sides, but there is still not much metal to absorb the energy and there is little distance over which this can happen.

I pressume the Escort didn't have side-impact air bags.

You can see pictures of the vehicles on the BBC video stream, if it still available, otherwise Paul has a copy of the images he may be willing to post. (video stream still available, see my posting on previous page)

Can you please give a link to the letter you mention, or produce a copy of it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 19:57 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Thought I would bring this to your attention. I was hoping to know for certain the speed at which the Escort left the road, but no formal release has been made.
http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=382145
Quote:
A6 death road speed camera was scrapped

By Phil Colemanand Chris Story

PLANS for a speed camera on the A6 were cancelled after the Government withdrew funding in the face of mounting public oppositionto the devices, police have revealed.

Instead, it was decided to lower the speed limit to 40mph.

Police chiefs say the camera would have saved lives.

Last Sunday six people, including a four-month old baby and an eight-year-old girl, died on the A6 near the Plumpton crossroads.

The accident, the cause of which is still under investigation, claimed the lives of 19-year-old learner driver Ricky Stott, his 21-year-old fiancee Sarah Wigham, and their baby son Luca.

Also in Mr Stott’s Ford Escort at the time of the accident on Father’s Day were Ricky’s sisters Kirsty Louise, 17, and eight-year-old Lindsey.

Sarah and Luca will be cremated on Monday at 11am in Carlisle. A service for Ricky, Kirsty and Lyndsey will be held next Wednesday at 11am at Penrith Methodist Church followed by burial at Penrith Cemetery.

A second motorist, 84-year-old Manchester man Stanley Critchley, who was driving a Toyota Prius, also died. His wife was in a critical condition.

Sixteen people have died on the A6 between Carlisle and Penrith in the last three years and this has prompted some villagers in Plumpton to claim that a roadside school playground could be the scene of another tragedy.

A new speed limit on either side of the Plumpton crossroads is due to come into force in July.

Despite the road’s shocking death toll, Superintendent Steve Turnbull said Cumbria’s roads death toll was cut by 25 per cent last year.

He said: “A camera was planned, and it could have been installed – we did all the measurements and it had approval from the Department for Transport.

“It would have been sited just a few hundred yards north of the accident scene. But the Government decided that there should be no further expansion of fixed camera sites after public pressure.

“But it would save lives – that’s a proven fact. All of the sites in Cumbria where we have mobile camera vans have seen a reduction in fatalities.

“The A6 is similar to many roads in Cumbria. It has long clear stretches with intermittent bends, junctions, etc. and has light traffic on it when compared with other parts of the country.”

Without commenting on the cause of Sunday’s accident, he said such accidents can happen to cars which are driving within the speed limit.

Within Plumpton village, residents said cutting the speed limit would be a key factor in making the road safer, though some wanted safety measures to go further.

Some fear that a car may one day crash into the playground of Plumpton Primary School, whose boundary wall is just a few yards from the edge of the crossroads.

A coroner yesterday recorded a verdict of accidental death on Dorothy Lister, 55, of Greenacres, Plumpton, near Penrith, and Gina Renucci, 22, of Carlisle, who died in an accident last October, a short distance from the scene of Sunday’s collision.


Instead, it was decided to lower the speed limit to 40mph.

Police chiefs say the camera would have saved lives.

So ignoring the fact the accident seems to have occured within the legal limit in force at the time, which is safer, a LOWER limit, or SPEED CAMERA "ENFORCEMENT"?
Superintendent Steve Turnbull admits that accidents happen below the legal limit too, so why does this article appear to have him giving out a mixed bag of... twaddle?

Maybe he has his sensible hat on, but it's been knocked to one side by those who did the survey which said a speed camera would save lives?
If so it would explain THIS BLATANT LIE:

Quote:
“But it would save lives – that’s a proven fact. All of the sites in Cumbria where we have mobile camera vans have seen a reduction in fatalities.

This postconfirms that their own figures show no change to fatalities at camera sites!

So just who is trying to fool who?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.171s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]