Crash

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/maj ... -1-9811811" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cut out of car

Drove past it! Looked awful, hope that there were no fatalities.

drove past myself. Couldn’t believe it. Looked horrific. Hopefully the roof being cut off made it look worse than it was.

Many times you see people driving like a prick on that corner. Hopefully no pedestrians hit and hopefully just a genuine accident.

The advisory flashing 30 sign is in the main always ignored I must admit I anchor on when I get to it, perhaps proper speed cameras will be installed imminently.

My ex drives a red Mini

That's one place where they ought to have speed cameras because speeding genuinely is dangerous. And it would be profitable too, so the powers that be would like it.

bfcjg wrote:The advisory flashing 30 sign is in the main always ignored I must admit I anchor on when I get to it, perhaps proper speed cameras will be installed imminently.

I'm not too sure, but isn't 30mph on Centenary Way mandatory? I know it used to be 40mph.

dsr wrote:That's one place where they ought to have speed cameras because speeding genuinely is dangerous. And it would be profitable too, so the powers that be would like it.

Speed cameras are fitted where there are the most accidents - not where people speed.

It's because as soon as a notice goes up that there's a speed camera ahead, drivers slow down, so they go off the stats of accidents/deaths to determine where they go up.

I live off a main road where people genuinely go over 100 in a 40. But I've not known any accidents here in 5 years. I'd love a speed camera to go up to slow people down, but all that will happen is drivers will slow down and nobody will be fined. I think the government know this and hence, don't bother doing anything about it.

I'm sure that's true of fixed cameras, but a copper with a mobile in a van sits where they make the most return financially.

dougcollins wrote:I'm sure that's true of fixed cameras, but a copper with a mobile in a van sits where they make the most return financially.

In other words, where most people speed.

ClaretAndJew wrote:My ex drives a red Mini

I really doubt you've got a ex tbh

FactualFrank wrote:Speed cameras are fitted where there are the most accidents - not where people speed.

It's because as soon as a notice goes up that there's a speed camera ahead, drivers slow down, so they go off the stats of accidents/deaths to determine where they go up.

I live off a main road where people genuinely go over 100 in a 40. But I've not known any accidents here in 5 years. I'd love a speed camera to go up to slow people down, but all that will happen is drivers will slow down and nobody will be fined. I think the government know this and hence, don't bother doing anything about it.

That's a reason for putting up hidden cameras. I'm strongly opposed to siting cameras where they aren't really needed, but very much in favour of putting them, secretly, where they are dangerous. The way they are placed and advertised now is (apparently deliberately) so that people who speed everywhere but buy the warning equipment can continue to speed on 95% of roads, while honest drivers who try not to speed and who try to match their speed to the road and to the limits will be the ones to be caught.

Local cricketer wrote:I really doubt you've got a ex tbh

dsr wrote:That's a reason for putting up hidden cameras. I'm strongly opposed to siting cameras where they aren't really needed, but very much in favour of putting them, secretly, where they are dangerous. The way they are placed and advertised now is (apparently deliberately) so that people who speed everywhere but buy the warning equipment can continue to speed on 95% of roads, while honest drivers who try not to speed and who try to match their speed to the road and to the limits will be the ones to be caught.

Are hidden cameras allowed? There must be something in the current law to state that only parked cars can clock people speeding without warning, otherwise, they would be all over the bloody place.

Which is why we get warning signs prior to cameras.

FactualFrank wrote:Speed cameras are fitted where there are the most accidents - not where people speed.

It's because as soon as a notice goes up that there's a speed camera ahead, drivers slow down, so they go off the stats of accidents/deaths to determine where they go up.

I live off a main road where people genuinely go over 100 in a 40. But I've not known any accidents here in 5 years. I'd love a speed camera to go up to slow people down, but all that will happen is drivers will slow down and nobody will be fined. I think the government know this and hence, don't bother doing anything about it.

I’m going to have to call bullshit on that one, Frank. An example being Westway (large roundabout down to the Mitre) in Burnley which, up until 2009/10 ish was a 40 mph zone. It’s a 4 lane dual carriageway, not including the bus lane on one side, and non-residential. The path on the left is also set back behind a verge and motorway barriers. It was changed to 30mph by stealth, as they removed the old 40mph signs and didn’t replace them with 30mph ones. By comparison it’s clear what the speed limit on centenary Way is.

From reading online it appears to be quite lucrative for the authorities to have a speed van hidden behind the bush at the bottom several times per week, and there doesn’t appear to have been any major accidents on that stretch.

If it was about speed then signs would make sense, especially those warning of the limit and speed camera, but the ‘slow down’ interactive ones, as suggested by the council in documents not intended for public eyes, even more so.

I know other areas which deserve to be monitored more, especially with them being residential, but they wouldn’t be as lucrative.

ClaretAndJew wrote:My ex drives a red Mini

You have had a girlfriend Richard ? I thought all nurses are sugar puffs lol

JimMcDonald wrote:You have had a girlfriend Richard ? I thought all nurses are sugar puffs lol

I'm bi

ClaretAndJew wrote:I'm bi

You missed -polar off that post

Claretforever wrote:I’m going to have to call bullshit on that one, Frank. An example being Westway (large roundabout down to the Mitre) in Burnley which, up until 2009/10 ish was a 40 mph zone. It’s a 4 lane dual carriageway, not including the bus lane on one side, and non-residential. The path on the left is also set back behind a verge and motorway barriers. It was changed to 30mph by stealth, as they removed the old 40mph signs and didn’t replace them with 30mph ones. By comparison it’s clear what the speed limit on centenary Way is.

From reading online it appears to be quite lucrative for the authorities to have a speed van hidden behind the bush at the bottom several times per week, and there doesn’t appear to have been any major accidents on that stretch.

If it was about speed then signs would make sense, especially those warning of the limit and speed camera, but the ‘slow down’ interactive ones, as suggested by the council in documents not intended for public eyes, even more so.

I know other areas which deserve to be monitored more, especially with them being residential, but they wouldn’t be as lucrative.

Call it what you like. The brother in law is a sergeant and I often challenge him on speed, cameras and annoying 'boy racers'. He is so looking forward to retirement next year and when these conversations crop up, often tells me as he has friends who work in road traffic, that they go off accidents - which includes fatalities. That's what decides whether a stationery camera goes up or not.

Which... as much as boy racers **** me off, I can understand. Throw 10,000 cars down a road and not a single accident appears, their thinking is who cares what speed they go at?

Bosscat wrote:You missed -polar off that post

It's a spectrum

ClaretAndJew wrote:It's a spectrum

I used to love Captain Scarlet when I was a Kid

FactualFrank wrote:Call it what you like. The brother in law is a sergeant and I often challenge him on speed, cameras and annoying 'boy racers'. He is so looking forward to retirement next year and when these conversations crop up, often tells me as he has friends who work in road traffic, that they go off accidents - which includes fatalities. That's what decides whether a stationery camera goes up or not.

Which... as much as boy racers **** me off, I can understand. Throw 10,000 cars down a road and not a single accident appears, their thinking is who cares what speed they go at?

If you’re challenging him often then you must be at best skeptical of what he’s telling you?

I’m not talking about static cameras, I’m talking mobile speed vans located in strategic places, when after years they haven’t put up signs which might suggest it’s best if people slowed down. If it was purely for safety then signs would be up.

Claretforever wrote:If you’re challenging him often then you must be at best skeptical of what he’s telling you?

I’m not talking about static cameras, I’m talking mobile speed vans located in strategic places, when after years they haven’t put up signs which might suggest it’s best if people slowed down. If it was purely for safety then signs would be up.

I'm completely on the fence. I'm just nosy and like to know more about what goes on within.

Mobile speed vans will of course be unpredictable, but my thoughts was never about that. If people speed and don't kill - they won't do anything about it.

Now is that right or wrong? A difficult question to answer when you bring in budgets et al.

Frank, I’m all all for speed cameras, and encourage more of them in the right places where people are endangering life. The police aren’t daft and know where they should be.

Claretforever wrote:Frank, I’m all all for speed cameras, and encourage more of them in the right places where people are endangering life. The police aren’t daft and know where they should be.

But that's entirely my point.

So what was the outcome of the crash? Apart from learning that claret & jew is bi and proud

FactualFrank wrote:Call it what you like. The brother in law is a sergeant and I often challenge him on speed, cameras and annoying 'boy racers'. He is so looking forward to retirement next year and when these conversations crop up, often tells me as he has friends who work in road traffic, that they go off accidents - which includes fatalities. That's what decides whether a stationery camera goes up or not.

Which... as much as boy racers **** me off, I can understand. Throw 10,000 cars down a road and not a single accident appears, their thinking is who cares what speed they go at?

Most laces have very few accidents - at least, very few fatal ones, which I think is what they go off. For example, the one on Burnley Road, Colne was put there after a tragedy where a schoolboy was killed by a van driver doing 20 mph in a van with no brakes that ran him over as it ran a red light on the wrong side of the road at the pelican crossing. (The driver panicked and didn't want to hit the back of the stationery car in front.) That accident was nothing to do with speeding.

Another reason that they like to put cameras where the accident happens is because it means the statistics on future accidents are bound to be favourable. A lot of the factor in where an accident happens is random - nothing to do with the road. So the places which have a bad accident record one year are likely to improve the next; the places with a clean accident record can only get worse. Therefore, put cameras where there have been accidents, and they are all but certain to be able to say that places where they put cameras have had fewer accidents than they had before.

dsr wrote:Most laces have very few accidents - at least, very few fatal ones, which I think is what they go off. For example, the one on Burnley Road, Colne was put there after a tragedy where a schoolboy was killed by a van driver doing 20 mph in a van with no brakes that ran him over as it ran a red light on the wrong side of the road at the pelican crossing. (The driver panicked and didn't want to hit the back of the stationery car in front.) That accident was nothing to do with speeding.

Another reason that they like to put cameras where the accident happens is because it means the statistics on future accidents are bound to be favourable. A lot of the factor in where an accident happens is random - nothing to do with the road. So the places which have a bad accident record one year are likely to improve the next; the places with a clean accident record can only get worse. Therefore, put cameras where there have been accidents, and they are all but certain to be able to say that places where they put cameras have had fewer accidents than they had before.

Just to make things clear - you actually think the above?

FactualFrank wrote:But that's entirely my point.

If you ignore the strategically place mobile cameras, yes. They also know where the mobile cameras should be, but put them when they want them to be.

Update
https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/pol ... 8VbHG3XbpY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

18yr old girl, serious but stable condition in hospital .. 18 Yr old lad got off with minor injuries

CoolClaret wrote:Update
https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/pol ... 8VbHG3XbpY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

18yr old girl, serious but stable condition in hospital .. 18 Yr old lad got off with minor injuries

Terrible. Hope shes ok and recovers fully.

So now it’s know that she was driving does that alter people’s perceptions that this was down to speeding?

wilks_bfc wrote:So now it’s know that she was driving does that alter people’s perceptions that this was down to speeding?

Nobody said what the cause was. Nobody knows. Thats why theyre appealing for witnesses.

But that corners known for speeding. So wouldnt be a surprise if it was. Especially seeing state of car.

Hopefuly she is ok though. Thats the main thing.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Nobody said what the cause was. Nobody knows. Thats why theyre appealing for witnesses.

But that corners known for speeding. So wouldnt be a surprise if it was. Especially seeing state of car.

Hopefuly she is ok though. Thats the main thing.

No I know that and I’ve seen plenty speeding down there
Reading through this thread and the comments about speed cameras shows that that is what most people were thinking, and if you mention a “speeding car” most, if not all, would assume a male driver.

Now I’m not saying this driver was or wasn’t speeding, but the conditions yesterday were not pleasant. It may simply be that she was within the limit but misjudged the conditions

And yes you are correct the main thing is that they both got out and will make a full recovery

My guess is that she's just passed her test and probably clipped the kerb and lost control, speeding or not.

wilks_bfc wrote:No I know that and I’ve seen plenty speeding down there
Reading through this thread and the comments about speed cameras shows that that is what most people were thinking, and if you mention a “speeding car” most, if not all, would assume a male driver.

Now I’m not saying this driver was or wasn’t speeding, but the conditions yesterday were not pleasant. It may simply be that she was within the limit but misjudged the conditions

And yes you are correct the main thing is that they both got out and will make a full recovery

Conditions were dreadful. Thats often a problem. Many dont drive to the conditions. 110 on the m65 at 3am would be fine. 30 yesterday on that road probably not.

Being so young and new driver she may not have known what to do when aquaplaning for example.

Instant reaction when I saw it was they mustve been driving erratically on that road for it to have ended up how it did but she may well have had a blow out or aquaplaned.

People do drive stupidly on that bend though. Sure someone was hit and killed there before? A young kid im sure.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Terrible. Hope shes ok and recovers fully.

Agree- but looking at the state of the car and the damage to the tree, it would appear that they've both been extremely fortunate. Let's hope so.