Fury over speed trap van parked on the kerb

October 25, 2006

| Submit Comments | Comments (17) | Previous | Next

FURIOUS motorists and campaign groups say this speed camera trap is a money-making case of double standards.

The camera - on Oldham Road, Newton Heath, Manchester - is parked on the pavement behind a set of double yellow lines.

Company director Chris Barclay, 33, of M and S Metal Services, was one of those caught out by it. He was fined é60 and given three points for driving at 41mph earlier this month.

He said: "They have put the camera in such a place that anybody turning into Monsall Road hasn't got a chance because you have to speed up with the flow of the traffic to get into the fast lane and turn. It is just a blatant money-maker.

"Oldham Road is a dangerous road - not because people are going over 30mph but because there are a few junctions which are badly laid out.

"I drive like a grandma but here I am with points on my licence."

A spokesman for the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership said: "The Transport Department granted this location as a mobile speed site in 2003 after two people were killed or seriously injured between 1999 and 2001 and 15 people were in minor collisions. Since the camera has been in place, no-one has been killed or seriously injured, highlighting how effective the site has been."

But a spokesman for Safe Speed, which campaigns agianst speed cameras, said: "There are double standards here in allowing the van to park on the pavement. The camera partnerships have become obsessed with getting as many motorists as possible."

| Submit Comments | Comments (17) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 17 and replies | View All

sprouty, Manchester (25/10/2006 at 16:05)

Look folks, it's simple. If you break the law, be prepared to pay the consequences if you get caught. Don't want a fine? Stick to the speed limit then. Not rocket science, is it?

ace riley, manchester (25/10/2006 at 16:41)

If you want to see double standards come over to ashton old road nearthe half way house .the pavements have been used as a car park for years with police just driving by doing nothing about it?ive complained about people having to walk on the road because people have to walk around cars and vans parked on the pavements????

Pamela, Crumpsall (25/10/2006 at 17:58)

How is this van allowed to get away with parking on the pavement? This does not set a good example to what is now one of the worst types of anti-social behaviour from drivers. Pavements are for pedestrians - not for vehicles to illegally park on them, not for cyclists to use, but for people on foot or in wheelchairs and nobody else. The van driver should be prosecuted for parking where he is and given a ticket for parking next to a double yellow line. This type of anti-social behaviour needs a strong response and the vehicle, or any vehicle parking on the pavement must be taken away and crushed.

Roger Williams, Hereford (25/10/2006 at 19:11)

Whatever the justification that is presented for parking the van where it is the fact is that it is sending out the wrong signals to the general public.

Jake Long, Manchester, City Centre (25/10/2006 at 19:22)

DfT statistics reveal the truth that SPEED IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS and may only be a contributory factor in 5 to 7 percent of accidents. It is time to scrap the cameras and dramatically raise the speed limits.

D'arkuk, Manchester (25/10/2006 at 20:16)

O.K. this is cleaver wording, "Since the camera has been in place, no-one has been killed or seriously injured, highlighting how effective the site has been." You would think, reading that, that there have been no accidents since 2003 but thats far from true, also that the mobile camera is effective at stoping accidents! All I can say is that I know Oldham Road like the back of my hand and just can't fathom how they could justify that comment. I'm surprised at the Manchester Evening News letting them getaway with this sort of cleaver and misleading response.

Driver, Swinton (26/10/2006 at 09:23)

I was once fine 20 quid for parking on a pavement, and rightly so. Who is going to fine these latterday highwaymen?

Roadpeace, Manchester (26/10/2006 at 13:49)

Oh Jake, Here we go again. Estimates suggest that 6% of all road casualties occured when someone was driving whilst over the legal limit for alcohol. Are you suggesting that the government should also scrap the drink drive laws along with cameras? What you are failing yet again to grasp is that speeding drivers cannot possibly stop in time if the unexpected happens like if a child steps off the pavement. The police will report that the cause was that the child failed to look properly even though the driver was driving too fast for the conditions. There is a reason that we all had to learn our stopping distances to pass our test. Do you remember them Jake? They are printed on the back of your Highway Code.

Les, Norden (26/10/2006 at 15:32)

Instances like this lessen respect for the law.
It is either an offence to park on the pavement or it isn't. Pavements are for pedestrians not motor vehicles.

Chris, Manchester (26/10/2006 at 16:13)

Roadpeace - those stopping distance on the back of the highway code are well past their sell-by date. A modern motorcycle can stop from 70mph in less than 50 metres (164 feet) - according to the highway code it is twice that. Speed doesn't kill, not paying attention & then hitting things does.

jeff, buxton (26/10/2006 at 17:23)

what are the police doing about this? surely it is an offence to park a motor vehicle on the pavement. Nothing will be done about it the police and other enforcement agencys are getting above the law and appear to be answerable to no one

Mike Pluples, Blackley (26/10/2006 at 20:15)

Approx 3 years ago I was a bus driver for Stagecoach Manchester. On one particular day it was pouring down and I was driving a no 201 bus from Hyde to Manchester. I pulled in at a bus stop in Denton just before Reddish Bridge as there were two elderly ladies waiting. As they were boarding I noticed that they were soaked. I asked why they had not stood under the shelter and they informed me that there was no room as the shelter was being used by two police officers and their camera. I pointed out to the officers that the shelter was for the use of intending passengers and was greeted by a shrug of the shoulders. I realise that this particular stretch of road has a fair amount of speeding vehicles but to make two elderly ladies stand in the pouring rain is simply uncalled for.

Dave, Salford (26/10/2006 at 21:25)

They just want to make money. Most accidents where speed is a factor, occur at night and weekend. This lot only work daytime monday-friday, that way they don't have to pay extra wages. I bet they don't send them out on public holidays, when the wage costs are higher. Its just the money, not safety.

Roadpeace, Manchester (27/10/2006 at 12:36)

Chris, I don't dispute that stopping distances have shortened with improved technology and also that accidents are caused by people not paying attention. But the fact remains that a faster vehicle will take longer to stop than a slower one and the imact will be greater. You are correct that not everyone pays attention on the roads but if they drove slower they would have a greater chance to avoid colliding with the thing they failed to pay attention to. As I mentioned before- the inattention of a pedestrian may cause the accident but a slower driver will be able to react in time to prevent it or lessen the injuries. It's just simple physics.

Chris, Manchester (27/10/2006 at 14:43)

Roadpeace - an attentive driver doing 35mph is far less likely to kill than an inattentive driver doing 25mph. This dispoportionate focus on speed as the number 1 issue is wrong, rechecking your speedo every 5 seconds is not a safe way to drive - and that is the effect speed enforcement has on all road users.

Jim, Prestwich (27/10/2006 at 16:13)

Chris, you are going to tie yourself in knots here. It is also obvious that an inattentive driver doing 35mph would do a lot more damage that an inattentive driver doing 25mph or for that matter your attentive driver doing 25mph. The permatations are endless. There are of course many other causes of accidents e.g. travelling too close to the vehicle in front or/and using a mobile phone on the move, both faults would be compounded the faster the speed.

Chris, Manchester (27/10/2006 at 18:43)

Jim - unlikely, as the attentive 35mph driver will spot the hazard well in advance & take action whereas the slower-traveling but inattentive driver will plough into the hazard at 25mph. I for one would rather everyone drove around my local roads at 35mph but paid attention instead of at 25mph while not. And trying to say "all speeding is dangerous" is hogwash - according to that blinkered ideology the only truly safe speed is zero mph!

()

Report

News