THE first permanent motorway speed cameras in the north west are to be fitted at an accident blackspot on Manchester's M60 motorway.
The cameras, policing a 50mph limit, will measure average speed on a one-mile section of the motorway around junction 25, near Brinnington, Stockport, where four people died last year.
The limit was imposed last year, but has been ignored by too many drivers, says Highways Agency boss David Grunwell, and tough action is needed to save lives.
"This is purely a safety measure," he said. "This section has been there since 1989 and it was built to the standards of the time. It is a sharp bend, but we cannot build our way out of the problem."
Three people died in one crash last April. Matt Weston, Melissa Boswell and Daniel Stewart were travelling in a car which hit the central reservation.
They managed to get out, but were then hit by another car.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
PW, Manchester (23/03/2007 at 10:56)
stephen mchugh, Manchester (23/03/2007 at 11:02)
Blip, Manchester (23/03/2007 at 13:33)
Joey, Ashton under Lyne, (23/03/2007 at 14:22)
Andy, Bury (23/03/2007 at 15:25)
We're talking, what a mile of road? So is it really that painful?
Chris, Irlam (23/03/2007 at 15:44)
Another fine example of the lowest denominator influencing policy to the detriment of others....
Andy, Bury (23/03/2007 at 16:40)
There have been a number if serious accidents here, including the tragic fatalities of last year. what are the authorities supposed to do? Twiddle their thumbs and let yet more accidents happen? If there were no safety issues, if the M60 were littered with speed cameras I may have more sympathy. But it's not. The approach is sensible and none more so than the siting of this camera to try and stem the tide of accidents and casualties.
Andrew, Manchester (23/03/2007 at 17:09)
The majority of people speed and yet as soon as speed cameras are mentioned, try to complain they are 'cash cows' instead of revealing the real reason for their hatred of the cameras. Because they are commiting a criminal offence by speeding. I can never understand people who complain about cameras, unless you speed, you aren't affected. You don't have a right to drive, you have to earn that right, everytime you drive your car.
Andy, Bury (23/03/2007 at 18:03)
Richard B, Wilmslow (23/03/2007 at 19:07)
pathetic.org.uk/motorways/a6m.shtml
and
pathetic.org.uk/maps/a6m/section1.shtml
What I'm not so sure about is why the 50 limit (and presumably the cameras as well) extends so far north of this junction. It is only really the stretch from just north of the railway bridge shown on the map attaching to the article that is of a substandard alignment with poorer sightlines - the bit between the railway bridge and the red mark further north on the plan is of a perfectly reasonable alignment, and some other sections of the M60 (and indeed other motorways in the UK) are of much worse standard - but don't have a lower speed limit and cameras.
Ian Tapp (24/03/2007 at 08:45)
Sean, Manchester (24/03/2007 at 10:03)
PW, Manchester (24/03/2007 at 10:06)
Andy, Bury (24/03/2007 at 15:17)
and all this "i can negotuate it at 70mph". well bully for you. the reality is people dying on this particular stretch. trying to prevent further casualties by ensuring the lower limit is observed seems far more sane than thinking you are Greater Manchester's answer to Schumacher.
Jake Long, City Centre, Manchester (25/03/2007 at 14:12)
Speed is not and never has been the cause of accidents. Get over it!
Andy, Bury (25/03/2007 at 19:47)
So, you argue that not only should by break speeding law, but should put other road users at risk by straddling lanes (chances are you will be anyway if you're speeding on that bend) and avoiding detection by driving a car registered in someone else's name (who will have to provce they weren't driving and give up any details if they know who was). Well, you can't speed if you're in Strangeways I guess.
busman_dave, manchester (25/03/2007 at 21:27)
Sean, Manchester (25/03/2007 at 21:34)
Andrew, Manchester (26/03/2007 at 08:10)
Andy, Bury (26/03/2007 at 09:09)
Look, it's quite simple. If you want to deny revenue, obey the law and don't speed.
And in this case, I find it astonishing that anyone would criticise the siting of a camera on a notorious stretch. The safety record of the M60 (and indeed motorways generally as they are our safest roads) may be good. But not on this bend.
Ian Tapp (26/03/2007 at 17:17)
Similarly statements such as "speed is proven the world over as the most common factor of death on the roads." and "Out of all accidednts on the motorway, speed is almost always the main factor in the cause." will be accepted without question by most readers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The UK government's own figures (which are biased towards blaming speeding) have speed at seventh in the list of causes of accidents and speed above the limit as causing only five percent of fatal accidents. The number one factor, if Andrew is interested, is inattention.
Please, when you see a statement, question it! Is there anyone out there who still believes in weapons of mass destruction?
Chris, Irlam (26/03/2007 at 17:36)
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/501.htm
Jake Long, City Centre, Manchester (26/03/2007 at 17:49)
In answer to your fist question - Jake long may be my real name, it may not. It is for me and my proxy server to know and you to find out. Either way, there are an awful lot of Jake longs about.
I suppose that you could register a vehicle in a completely false name, then just not reply if you are sent a letter. (The worst that they can then do is stick 3 points on Mickey Mouse¿s driving licence and issue an arrest warrant for said Mr. Mouse)
The safest roads in Britain are the fastest. i.e. Motorways.
The official figures state that speed is NOT the cause of the vast majority of accidents.
The speed limits in this country are set way too low.
Germany has no more accidents on its autobahns even though they have no speed restrictions.
Outside the TT race and its run up, the Isle of Man has no speed restrictions outside towns and yet fatalities and accident are no higher on it's roads than any others.
So if you are going to try and justify speed limits and claim the moral high ground then I suggest that you get your facts straight.
Andy, Bury (26/03/2007 at 18:19)
And where accidents are caused by driver error would you rather be hit by someone doing 50mph or 70mph (whether it's their error or not)?
And to what what level are you educated to and experienced in highway planning and accident mitigation.
And how many graves marked "Here lies someone who thought they were a better driver than they actually were"?
Jake Long, City Centre, Manchester (26/03/2007 at 22:49)
Well as I drive at 80 plus, neither of them would ever catch me. But seriously, it would not make any difference, as both vehicles would be travelling in the same direction.
How many graves are marked: "Here lies a person who died of boredom because the politically correct HSE and anti car pressure groups made life so miserable and boring that it can no longer be described as living at all, merely an existence" - The answer of course is somebody with a very large gravestone.
You don't need a degree, just a modicum of intelligence to work out that if you wish to mitigate accidents then must rely on the speed limit but if you wish to prevent accidents then you must use other measures.
Which do you prefer Mr. moral high ground Mitigation or Prevention?
PS. I don't think that I am a good driver, every time I get behind the wheel I learn something new, as does every driver. Just because I learned many years ago that there is no correlation between speed and accidents does not make me think that I am a good driver.