YOUR piece on the reduction of accidents on St Peter's Way and the number of prosecutions (9,700) following the installation of the speed traps raises serious road safety questions.
One cannot argue with the reported figures of the reduction in accidents nor with the 9,700 speeding offences. However, if we are to believe that the reduced speed limit is responsible for the reduced, overall number of accidents (a result everyone will welcome) there is still more which can be done to prevent injuries and even deaths.
The speed cameras have failed to slow down at least 9,700 drivers. That's 9,700 potential accidents. No sane motorist would knowingly drive past a camera at excessive speed but because of the number of offences which have been detected, we can assume that these motorists did not know there was a camera in place.
This could be and probably is because the cameras are not highly visible. Indeed, the one at the A666 junction at Farnworth is hidden. Would it not be better if these cameras, all of them, were made highly visible, as on mainland Europe, so as to be more effective at reducing speed and, as a direct result, the number of accidents even further.
Because this was not done at the outset, one suspects that a hidden agenda is present; one of raising revenue via speeding fines and accepting that certain a level of accidents, albeit one reduced from former levels, is tolerable. In war time I think this is called "acceptable casualties". If this is the case and the facts would seem bear it out, then those responsible for road safety policy are not doing the job properly and are blaming the motorist for at least some of their own short sightedness.
Why not re-invest some of the revenue already collected from speeding fines and paint the cameras in bright, warning colours. I'm sure that the victims of those potential, future accidents which might occur because of speeding, will be grateful.
Ernest Goodyear
Albert Road West
Heaton, Bolton
(By e-mail) YOUR piece on the reduction of accidents on St Peter's Way and the number of prosecutions (9,700) following the installation of the speed traps raises serious road safety questions.
One cannot argue with the reported figures of the reduction in accidents nor with the 9,700 speeding offences. However, if we are to believe that the reduced speed limit is responsible for the reduced, overall number of accidents (a result everyone will welcome) there is still more which can be done to prevent injuries and even deaths.
The speed cameras have failed to slow down at least 9,700 drivers. That's 9,700 potential accidents. No sane motorist would knowingly drive past a camera at excessive speed but because of the number of offences which have been detected, we can assume that these motorists did not know there was a camera in place.
This could be and probably is because the cameras are not highly visible. Indeed, the one at the A666 junction at Farnworth is hidden. Would it not be better if these cameras, all of them, were made highly visible, as on mainland Europe, so as to be more effective at reducing speed and, as a direct result, the number of accidents even further.
Because this was not done at the outset, one suspects that a hidden agenda is present; one of raising revenue via speeding fines and accepting that certain a level of accidents, albeit one reduced from former levels, is tolerable. In war time I think this is called "acceptable casualties". If this is the case and the facts would seem bear it out, then those responsible for road safety policy are not doing the job properly and are blaming the motorist for at least some of their own short sightedness.
Why not re-invest some of the revenue already collected from speeding fines and paint the cameras in bright, warning colours. I'm sure that the victims of those potential, future accidents which might occur because of speeding, will be grateful.
Ernest Goodyear
Albert Road West
Heaton
Bolton (By e-mail)
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article