Safe Speed Forums

"Casualty Reduction Partnership"

Another name change.....

Is this "speed camera partnership" or "safety camera pertnership"?

I wonder how much they spend on changing the stationary...

It is getting dafter.

Deaths are going up so they should be called "Casualty re-classification Partnership"

Options:

Antisocial, Autotheft...

Hope they're not going to follow north warks example and try to nab motorbikes from front -
See MCN 11/may.(also on their site)

Chief Superintendent Jon Bond, Partnership Chairman said:
“I don’t want people to be detected speeding, I want safer roads.. ...I hope that motorists who continue to choose to drive above the speed limit will take notice of this warning and slow down because the introduction of the motorcycle means there is now an even greater risk of being detected.”

I just wish that they'd make their minds up about what they're trying to do..

Yet anyone who is caught slowing cars down before they go into a speed-trap is prosecuted for "obstructing the police...".

SPEED CAMERA MADE ROAD MORE DANGEROUS

10:30 - 16 May 2005
I refer to your story "Camera at crash site is destroyed" (Hinckley edition, May 12).

As a regular user of the A5 between Atherstone and Nuneaton, I would contend that despite the predictable response by Stephen Rumble, of the Warwickshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, the recently destroyed camera had if anything made this section of the A5 more dangerous.

This particular camera was placed behind the widest tree for miles. There are warning signs advising of cameras but there are no speed limit signs for several miles in either direction on this section of the A5.

The result is that many motorists unfamiliar with the area, usually driving within the speed limit, suddenly see the camera when very close to it and brake suddenly down to 40mph, obliging following vehicles to do the same.

The Redgate junction where the A444 crosses the A5 remains highly dangerous, especially for traffic trying to turn right on to the A5. Installing spend cameras has only added another distraction for drivers.

If Councillor Ivan Ould is really serious about making this junction safe he would be arranging for a full-sized traffic island to be built and to divert the Leicestershire side of the A444 around the south side of the Redgate public house.

This would enable traffic coming from the direction of Burton to turn on to the northbound A5 in safety, and would have the added benefit of improving traffic flows on the A444 towards Nuneaton.

In the past two years two completely new traffic islands have been built a few miles further south on the A5, at Nutts Lane and at Sketchley Lane. At both sites the previous T junctions were far less dangerous than the Redgate junction. Since money can be found for these why was priority not given to making safe the much more dangerous Redgate?

Of course installing a traffic island would also oblige traffic on the A5 to moderate its speed to negotiate the island and therefore mean that there would be no need for speed cameras. But then that would mean no revenue from fines. I think we can all see where priorities really lie.

Keith Charlton, Grendon.

If Councillor Ivan Ould is really serious about making this junction safe he would be arranging for a full-sized traffic island to be built and to divert the Leicestershire side of the A444 around the south side of the Redgate public house.

In the past two years two completely new traffic islands have been built a few miles further south on the A5, at Nutts Lane and at Sketchley Lane. At both sites the previous T junctions were far less dangerous than the Redgate junction. Since money can be found for these why was priority not given to making safe the much more dangerous Redgate?