Safe Speed Forums

Very amusing.

This sentence really sums up a lot about cameras (uk or US), spying on us and public freedoms:

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

This is where in incident investigation (where the focus is designed to find causes and prevent future occourances of same accidents rather than find who can be fined) deals with root cause analysis and comes up with primary and secondary causes:

Primary cause: Remove and that particular accident cannot happen.
Secondary cause: Remove and the accident can still happen, but with a reduced severity of outcome.

In this case we could end up with two primary causes in tandem:

Why did driver A brake hard - they saw a police vehicle and braked to slow down and avoid a ticket. In itself with no other road users this would not lead to an accident.

Why did Driver B drove into the back of Driver A - they were driving to close to the vehicle in front (to stop safely without collision) at a time when Driver A did slam the brakes on.

The two primary factors are the cause of Driver A's action combined with the inabilty of Driver B to drive in a manner that allowed enough of a gap top allow them to deal with a hazard.

This is pretty quick and dirty, but without taking statements, going to view the incident site etc, but you see what I mean.

With more cameras and drivers reactions to them (how many drivers do we see 'panic braking' when they come across cameras even when they are well within the limit) and the number of drivers who drive to close to avoid (or mitigate this hazard). It could be taken that every camera site is a potential incident hotspot due to the increased likelyhood that this type of incident will occour.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

I know the general rule on posts' is don't post if it doesn't add something.

But I'd just like to add this if I may Safety Engineer

An excellent post and one which speaks volumes about what is going wrong in our society IMO and I most certainly see what you mean!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The article provided:
twice infers that Driver A (henceforth 'Ford SUV') was traveling at 65MpH prior to its brakestand,
quantifies 'Ford SUV's brakestand as -30MpH,
quantifies 'Ford SUV's speed after the brakestand as 35MpH
NEVER suggests or infers that 'Ford SUV' was traveling in excess of the posted speed 'limit'

What does the excessive portion of 'Ford SUV's brakestand qualify as? A primary cause? Or a secondary cause?
The reason why I ask, is because ...
I classify 'Ford SUV's brakestand as the second erroneous event and the second primary cause.
I classify the excessive magnitude of the brakestand as the third erroneous event, but merely a secondary cause.

'Ford SUV's errors are of a fundamentally different nature than the errors of Driver B (henceforth 'Pontiac G6'). Though the collision would not have occurred without 'Pontiac G6' (or any other vehicle, FWIW), 'Ford SUV' made active mistakes directly precipitated by the speed camera van 1st, followed by his heuristic misgivings.

Meanwhile, 'Pontiac G6' made passive mistakes all precipitated by 'Ford SUV'. In my mind, 'stopping short' or 'brakestanding', when it is not required to prevent a collision AND is also factor in a collision, significantly mitigates the responsibility of the following car. As the article states, 'Pontiac G6' did not expect anything untoward to happen (she certainly didn't know about the speed camera van.)

Oh, and if the speed camera van intended to prevent driving above the posted speed 'limit', it would have been positioned so as to avoid surprising 'Ford SUV'.
However, since it was instead positioned to surprise 'Ford SUV', and in fact did surprise 'Ford SUV', I classify it as the initial, the primary, and the linchpin causal factor of the collision.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

If the speed cameras were concealed rather than being in full view the problem of drivers braking when they see them would not occur

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

If the speed cameras were perfectly concealed, people would behave normally, driving safely 99.9% of the time, they'd get tickets, and then wonder why law enforcement needs to sneak around like thieves.

If the speed cameras became visible at greater, more reasonable distances, panic braking would be replaced by much more gradual, considered braking, if not altogether slower pacing, and everyone would die a little inside ...

Unless the posted speed 'limits' were more reasonable. Say, by setting them around the 85th %ile.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't speed cameras also exist in Germany? I didn't notice any during my admittedly short drives, mostly in metropolitan areas. Then again, maybe the underlying reason why more people don't consider them a problem in Germany, is because the speed 'limits' aren't set so unreasonably low? [... and maybe German law enforcement is no longer so interested in power for power's sake?]

I still oppose speed cameras, by the way, but most of the malice aforethought of speed cameras, is unreasonably low speed 'limits'.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

What do you mean driving safely?

If I drive down a road at 90mph and don't have a crash was I driving safely?

What happens if I drive down the same road at 90mph and something untoward happens and I wipe out, and wouldn't have had I been going a bit slower? Was I driving safely then?

What if I'm driving at 20mph, (10mph under the speed limit), and I'm pissed as a fart, just injected, poor eyesight and high as a kite?

Would a speed camera pick that up?

I think not my friend, but you have heard me say this kind of stuff for a while now

Luv Tone

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yes it would appear that you were driving safely enough for that road at that time of day as best as we can tell without being there.




Errrr, NO, it would appear not!

Come on , Weepej, it's not rocket science!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Like what? Give an example.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler