Safe Speed Forums

This is a bit of a brainstorm so forgive me if its a bit waffly.

The 'picture of the year' thread got me thinking. From the look of the photo itself and the google earth arial image, that looks like a nice straight road with decent forward visibility, so surely the camera should be visible early enough to avoid the need for panic braking at all? So, although in principle we're all pretty well agreed that the camera was a contributary factor, surely observation failure (and/or possibly tailgating)as the ACTUAL cause of the lockup and subsequent loss of control?

This train of thought led me onto something else. Its been banded about on here that speed limits are a good guideline for novice motorists, but a truely advanced motorist should be able to set his own speed based upon observation and knowledge of prevailing conditions etc and in this case, cameras are an unnecessary and dangerous distraction. However, in most cases (and yes I know that there are some sneaky cameras about) cameras, certainly GATSOs, are visible far enough in advance with proper and thorough observation that one has enough time to react safely and without too much distraction. So therefore if one really is travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions, then one should never actually need fo worry about cameras.

So, could this actually mean that in a perverse way, cameras DO provide benifit, if nothing more than by highlighting motorists who's observation and forward planning aren't up to scratch by either pinging them or causing them to crash / near miss?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I guess you could say that someone who has been caught say 3 or more times by a fixed camera may perhaps have poor observation to the extent that they are worse drivers even without cameras.

But I would say that cameras are still a big distraction to all drivers in some situations, like driving on unfamiliar roads - it just becomes one more think to worry about after working out sign posts, lanes, junctions etc.

At least there is now a requirement for these signs where there is a fixed camera in 30 limits - which should cut down on panic braking.

I think I have this fully unravelled.

Firstly the photograph case. Hell, yes, it's bad driving to panic at a speed camera and crash. The driver is responsible for his actions. But like the Manchester bollards, the authorities also have their own responsibilities - and in this case they have failed to create an environment in which it was safe for an 'ordinary' person to operate.

Secondly the theory that cameras are somehow a test of observation or attention. I don't buy this one at all. Sure they might be a test of your ability to spot a speed camera but a speed camera isn't a real road hazard and success or failure really isn't a good representation of one's ability to spot a real road hazard. On occasions spotting a camera might even indicate the exact opposite - a visual scan that's not properly concentrated on real hazards.

Thirdly, I'm extremely concerned that we're placing 'virtual hazards' at the road side. We're all learning to look out for cameras, and that means less attention remains for real hazards.

Lastly, many crashes take place when drivers are overloaded or saturated with information. It's at least possible that a good driver nearing information saturation is amongst the most likely to be caught by camera too.

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

Oooohhh wait a sec.
We know that the majority of people don't crash when they see a speed camera.
We know the majority of people don't crash their cars into bollards
Both of these are situations the ordinary driver seems to be able to cope with, the fact that a few dont suggests, to me at least, that these few are not 'ordinary' in the sense that I understand the word to mean. Unwary, unobservant, stupid even, but not ordinary.

'Ordinary' may not have been the best choice of word. I DO mean it, but I think you have taken 'ordinary' as meaning 'typical'.

The folk crashing may not be typical, and they may be at the extreme end of the scale, but I would challenge any suggestion that they are outside of 'ordinary' - we'd need evidence for that and we don't have any.

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

But surely that extreme end of the scale is where the efforts need to be made? No, a fine through the post does nothing but maybe, just maybe the detection could be used to more positive ends?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

let's take Rigpig's statement to its logical conclusion.

The majority of people don't crash.

That makes those that do unwary, unobservant, stupid even, but not ordinary.

Well, ABSOLUTELY. We need to try to create an environment where those tending to the worst can still avoid crashing. This is the case when resources are applied to all equally (as in road design or legislation).

Resources applied on an individual basis, such as post crash training or police attentions should be focused on those groups where they can do the most good.

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

Quite. The trouble is, with insurance the way it is people are actively discouraged from admitting fault in an accident. You can't learn if you can't admit you did something wrong.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I may live to regret that choice of word!

But if we were talking about height, ordinary would be the entire range of 'normal' folk. For males, perhaps 5 feet to 6 foot 8. Dwarves and midgets would be excluded.

I was trying to say that those crashing are likely to be in the normal range, despite being untypical.

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

I think I was agreeing with you - I was pointing out the flaw with Rigpig's statement - ie "ordinary" people do screw up. Sometimes, but not always, this has bad consequences.
Now it may take a special sort of "ordinary" to hit a bollard or roll a car on a straight road but is it any more special than running into the back of someone because you were distracted or pulling in front of someone you didn't see?

This is not, of course, true of Talivans, which must be getting an ever-expanding proportion of camera prosecutions.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Paul - stop digging FFS! I can hear gangs of C+ers busily writing: "Paul Smiths says people of restricted height not normal!!!!" as I type

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

There's no need to give them ideas.

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

I don't understand where the 'flaw' is then?

'Ordinary' people have a capacity to display extra-ordinary errors of judgement, failures of assessment (of a situation or their own abilities) or other such screw-ups that defy all reasonable efforts to anticipate and capture or prevent them e.g.

DIY screw ups which hospitalise the incompetent
Missions to recover stranded hillwalkers or sightseers caught in a rising tide
People who drive into bollards!
People who fall for credit card scams

Just how far is society expected to go to 'nanny' people in order to mitigate the outcome of their own failures. Ordinary people screw up, screw ups by ordinary people are not always reasonably predictable and/or preventable.

is this a new requirement then

_________________
now retired

yes but unless I've misunderstood that's not what you said above:





well now, that's a very good question. It's just possible that we have gone way too far already.

Er yes, I got myself tangled up trying to bash out a reply in short space of time I meant that, in spite of being oridinary in the sense that I understood, they displayed extra-ordinary behaviours. Like my old boss, an ordinary bloke in all respects, who once admitted he hospitalised himself by copping an angle grinder to the ball sack
We are not however about to embark upon a program of banning domestic power tools or calling for training before anyone can walk into the cowboy ranch known as B&Q and buy one.

In other words, the ordinaryness of people who fall foul of something does not in itself provide a metric against which we can gauge the unworthiness or danergousness of whatever it was that caught them out, unless it is happening with startling regularity.

Yes I know I probably invented a word or two there but you get the gist... I hope!

If every driver was sticking to the posted speed limits then a speed camera would be no different to a sign advertising the local pub, for instance, but because of drivers' reactions to a speed camera it is pretty significant from a hazard point of view.

We don't have many fixed cameras round here but where there is one in a 70 mph limit drivers travelling within the speed limit generally slow to 60 or less when passing the camera. Whether they don't know what the speed limit is for a dual carriageway or whatever, they are causing a hazard for drivers travelling at an indicated 70 mph!