Safe Speed Forums

http://p075.ezboard.com/fmtvanfrm2.show ... 6086.topic



Has anyone got a log on for that board to get further details?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

but if you read on

Routemaster
Member
Posts: 154
(10/11/06 22:09)
Reply Re: tax Iveco flatbed travelling at 93mph. Camera van in layby at side of road. NOT motorway, so if flatbed weighs more more than 2 tonnes and under 7.5tonnes he is limited to 60mph on a dual carriageway, and 50mph?? on a single carriageway if the roads are unrestricted. So if a dual carriage way he was exceeding the limit by more than 50%, if a single carriageway he was exceeding it by almost 100%. How the f*** can the camera van be blamed??. I don't like them either, but in these circumstances the twat driving the flatbed should be jailed, and then banned for at least five years. I cover 70,000 a year, no points luckily, but no late deliveries either in three years, and no accidents. But then I try not to drive like a f*****g lunatic and then blame the rest of the world when I come a cropper. Was he on the phone at the time?? Changing the CD?? Would we be blaming the camera for being in the layby, or any where else, if flatbed man had lost control and crashed into a minibus full of kids or ploughed into a bus stop.

The cameras we all decry normally allow 10%+2 so 68mph 0r 57mph in this instance, I just can't feel any sympathy for the fella, sorry. And worst of all is we all get tarnished with the same brush!!

John Holmes
Routemaster
Denton, Manchester
07802 530115
routemaster1@ntlworld.com
SWB Primastar
Basic Disclosure Available
VAT Registered

Weather in Manchester is.....Well, this IS Manchester!!
Routemaster
Member
Posts: 156
(10/11/06 22:16)
Reply Re: tax

Forgot to say, all my sympathies are with the cameraman and in particular the tipper driver who will probably have to carry it for the ever. Poor sods.

John Holmes
Routemaster
Denton, Manchester
07802 530115
routemaster1@ntlworld.com
SWB Primastar
Basic Disclosure Available
VAT Registered

Weather in Manchester is.....Well, this IS Manchester![/quote]

_________________
now retired

And read on further.

yes John,I agree.
A true 93mph= atleast 100mph on his speedo.

Not arguing that's reckless & I too hold a clean licence.

however, had the camera van been clearly visible (as it obviously wasn't-& knowing this stretch of road & this cameraman I know exactly what he was up to) then the van driver would not have emergency braked & MAYBE the accident might not have happened.

I've complained to the safety camera partnership about this bloke concealing his van on 3 separate occasions & on another about it being illegally & dangerously parked whilst carrying out his duties.

I don't have a problem with speed camera vans,provided they're up front & honestly operated & I know this operator hides his van wherever possible-in fact I feel another complaint to the SCP coming on.

Forgot to mention, John, that the layby this van was parked in is set back from the road & the van would not have been visible until the very last moment. the whole video of all of this takes less than 15 seconds,giving you some sort of idea of the kind of distances involved.
this cameraman has deliberately chosen this location to trap as many people as possible.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Iveco flatbed + 100mph indicated or 93 zapped?

To quote a popular TV programme, 'I DON'T THINK SO!' (But I stand to be corrected.)

Gross inaccuracy on the part of the 'scameraman'. Probably added the two speeds together!

I think this is a spoof.

sorry my mistake, the CO is to blame

any1 know where the spoof took place

_________________
now retired

CO- can see part of your arguement, but then again , someone said "93MPH" - "don't think so" - why -it's similar to Transit - and that would need a downhill slope ,and possibly a following wind.

And where did "crashed into a minibus full of kids or ploughed into a bus stop. " come from ?

When will you realise that camera vans, gatos, parked police cars,and now Highways Agency dont cause collisions. Its the idiots who drive about with there eyes either shut or just looking at the end of there bonnet then when they see one of the above wham the brakes are applied as hard as they can and sometimes the inevitable happens.

The other night I finished at 1.45am from work travelling west along the M62 at 70mph (cruise Control) then in my mirror I saw what I now know to be a Vauxhall Vectra it must have been doing at least 100mph + when it came past me.

Then about 500 yards past me the Vectra braked that hard that the back end very slightly stepped inwards, I laughed as I knew that he had obviously seen what I first thought was a police car but on closer inspection it was the boys from the Highways Agency,guess what once he realised it was them he was back up to his cruising speed.

So, who would have been to blame if the Vectra would have lost control and either collided with street furniture or one of LGVs that was masking the HA vehicle which was only doing I would say 56 - 60mph as recommended. As far as I can see only one person to blame and that was the pillock driving the Vectra no ifs or buts. but no doubt I will here all the very good reasons why its everyone else mentioned faults.
Stephen

Taking into consideration it was 1.45am and on a motorway would you have considered his driving to be dangerous, and would you have stopped him if you'd been on duty?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

So we should stop spending money on crash barriers (for example) because when someone hits one it's their fault?

You are absolutely right that if your Vectra driver had crashed it would have been his fault.

But it is also the responsibility of the authorities to take account of real world human behaviour and create a safe environment.

At the system level, the presence of cameras does certainly cause crashes - but neither the individual nor the authorities can be absolved from thier contribution.

One big difficulty for the authorities in this is that entirely innocent drivers WILL get caught up in the fallout of such crashes.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

At that speed he should be more aware of what is going on. This is one of the reasons I don't drive that fast.



Not really that funny though?

Yes he should have seen you. Yes he should have been more aware.

But you would have been a contributory factor, because if you had not been in an car which can look very smilar to a police car (why I do not know?) , he would not have braked that hard.

What worries me more is the fact he did not apper to learn from this, he nearly lost control of his car, but he went back up to a speed of +100 mph .

Shouldn't the fact people react like this be considered, because it is a dangours side effect

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

why? my truck travels at half that speed yet i look as far ahead as i can. i dont look further ahead according to my current speed. i also keep an eye on vehicles travelling behind each other. when will one decide to pull out and overtake? last minute? it happens. hazard awareness and anticipation should be fully used at any speed and on any road

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

okay. I never said it didn't.
I also understand driving a HGV is alot more demanding than driving my little car. The only thing I can relate it to is when I was in the U.R.N.U and driving ships, which where big and slow to stop and turn.I had to be aware of what was happening several miles ahead, and plan accordingly.

[quote="scanny77"]
yet i look as far ahead as i can. i dont look further ahead according to my current speed[/qoute]

As do I-i drive at a speed where I am comfortable dealing with, and anticipating hazards.
However when you are driving at high speed you have to think faster and process the above information quicker and this requires a higher level of concentration and awareness,because the surrounding environment is changing at a much higher rate.
If he broke 500 yards after he passed the car, it is clear he was not processing the hazards on the road quick enough, so was not aware and cleary not looking that far ahead, which once again is worring.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

The thing that got me into this was the siting of a camera van on a bridge with limited visibilty that posed a danger to other road users.

This might be a spoof but from personal experience would say that this is grounded in trouth.

Cam Op unfortunately not all operators are as concientous as you are, I've spoken to some operators and the usual excuses is often 'The contractor set the site up, my response is tha they should not set up but should get the contractor back and set it up properly.

Likewise some camera sites have no deterent effect as they are so well hidden. In the RAF I was taught to set up ambushes, and looking at some camera sites they meet most of teh criteria for a successful ambush site.

_________________
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

Here ... we are aware of the panic attack. . why we do get the local media to tell the public about campaigns of the month and target areas.

In fairness to the members of the public who drive on our roads - it's rare as they all know we just appear "out of nowhere" anyway .. It's always their danger here



I'd rather they just eased gradually if they see us rather than a sharp brake. When I was trafpol on the actual roads.. was far more lenient with the gradual braker to limit than the anchors on type

However, I do note that people stamp on braked even if marginally over these days...and I conclude that an obsession with a speed limit and threat to diving licence rather undermines a safetly led approach. In the good old days.. we knew if a driver was slowing to comply with a lolly and provided they appeared to comply within reason.. fine . no probs.

These days - we tend to see very abrupt braking - even if legal. Now I know a camera is rather rigid.. but please.. HATOS and TRAFPOL wiill look at the actual driving standard .. and stamping on brakes rather focuses us all he more to you.. and we may miss the real idiots as a result. Just stay calm.. ease off and feather the brake gently. This tells us about observation skills and we may sniff around all the same

BUT...

My lads and self prefer seeing skill to numptiness and yes - we may well stop and have a word.. but professional judgement always features with regard to action taken and outcome ..but I speak for here and not Cheshire. Sorry Stephen You should know though . right "rebels" up here and best safety record inthe country though we do have the odd incident and looking to see how we can improve here all the more.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Whilst I see the point you're making there are extremes in everything. It's an absolute fact that when I'm on a gatso infested road I'm a less safe driver. They force a shift in attention to the speedo through fear for my license. I'm very aware of the amount of attention I give to the speedo - don't like it but I have no choice at all.

Of course if I hit something it's my fault - but for sure they're a contributory element.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

In response to Stephen

You state, "Here ... we are aware of the panic attack. . why we do get the local media to tell the public about campaigns of the month and target areas. "

Not all people driving on roads are from the local area and therefore do not get the local press. This then means that safe drivers who minimally exceed the arbitory speed limits are caught by fixed and mobile cameras and are also having to brake quickly when they spot a site or van.

Also, unlike yourself scammera operators and fixed camaras do not look at whether the person is safely driving or a numpty, each is dealt with in the same way. It is this method of operation that is causing the development of a low opinion of the Police and its Senior Officers and Partners in scammering who try to say that cameras are for road safety when we now know that they are for revenue as the facts used are flawed and the siting of these stings is dubious. If it had anything to do with road safety mobile vans would not hide, would not target immediately after speed signs and the system should be set up to allow for a cautionary reminder to be sent rather than the rough justice many people receive today.

I am totally against unsafe speeding and dangerous driving and believe that any one caught doing this deserves to be punished. However, cameras are not the way to reduce accidents as they are now used. When did the last camera catch a stolen car driven dangerously, or catch a drunk etc.

You and your colleagues instead of accepting the current safety scheme should have your professional organisations asking for a return to educating drivers by introducing more of Officers, not supporting the system that is replacing you.

Had that been me (it wasn't!) I hope I'd have paid deference to you and backed off/braked so that as I passed you I'd have been sufficiently inconspicuous that you'd have questioned your original judgement .

Having said that, given his display in front of you to compound his (arguably) excessive speed when he caught you up, why didn't you give him a tug, Stephen? Not a criticism I hasten to add; just interested to know your reasoning.

Not said in any shape or form in defence of Vectra - but why do HA vehicles try to imitate the antics of the traffic patrols of old. Used to be easy to see if trafpol was on motorway patrol - be in lane 1 ,doing about 60 , very visible .At other times making very good progress in L3 - making it obvious that they were on way from A -B.
As far as the Vectra antics ( and others of that ilk ) go --we need some form of deterrent - but now we are seeing blinkered driving, driving in excess of vision, and panicing at the slightest sign of any suspicious activity - like a shower of mice when a cat could be out - only the cat don't take pictures and send out letters - the cat stops the problem at the time.

Roger,
As much as i like my job I havent yet got round to stopping cars whilst on route home, as if i did this I would never get home some nights or days for that matter. in situations like this i just become a professional witness when the wheel comes off.

If I were on duty then I would have stopped him due to his manner whilst trying to slow down and pointed out his errors in his driving,if this went well send him off with a flea in his ear.
Stephen

Back to the original point, I am sure we can all agree that a van overtaking a lorry at the better part of 100mph is excessive speed. The fact it was a lorry he was passing meant his view of the road ahead was limited (as evidenced by the fact he spotted the scamera van late), and doing those speeds in that vehicle meant he would have had zero reserves left for contingencies.

However, had a human traffic officer seen his behavior, he could have stopped him safely a little further down the road, given him a positive rebriefing on road safety, and issued any punishments he saw fit as a deterrent to repeat (mis)behavior. Instead the sight of the talivan had him panic braking, and was unquestionably a contributing factor to what sounds like it was probably a fatal accident. Another sad confirmation that rigid-enforcing speed cameras detract from road safety. It was undoubtedly the driver's 'fault' but all accidents consist of a chain of events, the removal of any one of which will prevent the accident; had the talivan not been there the driver would have likely completed his (albeit ill-advised) overtake without death or injury. Replace it with a traffic cop and the result could be one chastened, poorer, hopefully more cautious and definately more alive driver.