Safe Speed Forums

Yes, that's an important distinction to make. At the micro level, each accident (apart from the relatively small minority that result from mechanical failure) is the responsibility of one or more road users.

However, there are many things that can be done at the "system" level to make accidents more or less likely. If a driver makes a mistake because of a distraction - whether it be a camera van or a poster of Kylie Minogue in her undies - then to an extent the distraction is a cause of the accident. Yes, it is the driver's fault for allowing himself to be distracted, but remove the distraction and the accident probably would not have happened. If roadside items are placed there by the authorities which they know are likely to cause distraction, then they must be regarded as a more significant causal factor.

In the words of Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman in the 1940s: "If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in." (from "The Political Root of Road Accidents").

_________________
"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

Precisely my point Pete, we've grown up and realise we have responsibilities.



Oh come on Pete, I'm sure you realised I was talking only about the hazard relating to suddenly spotting a camera or scamera van.



Yet at a system level driving above the speed limit in the UK, whether done safely or not, is considered an illegal and endorseable offence. Every driver within the system knows this, and is aware of speed limit enforcement policy - if the driver hadn't been knowingly exceeding the speed limit the crash wouldn't have happened at all.

[Edit]
Look, I'm not saying I'm happy about it, and I concede that had the camera not been there then the accident wouldn't have happened (probably). But I'm just not prepared to practice such chicanery, or deploy flawed logic to argue against camera policy - the driver should not be exceeding the limit in the first place, that is illegal, speed cameras as yet are not.

But make sure you don't do so in Cumbria Bit over sensitive in that county...

_________________
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.

Not illegal yet, but they are still deliberately placed distraction hazards !

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)

Indeed it is. However, up until the camera reign, it was policed with sensitivity. I'm not saying Trafpol used to ignore minor transgressions - they didn't. However, for occasions where driving was not up to standard, they used to take it as an opportunity to educate the offender with a pull and a chat, knowing that they had up their sleeve the option of prosecution if the lecture was not properly received or if they recognised the target as someone who they'd tugged for a simiolar rerason within the last week or so. Cameras can't do that.

Is this reporter's name real!

This is the crux of arguments I've had previously about 'overt' detection and of course the level of built in tolerance.

Most people agree that the disadvantages of tolerating +90mph drivers on our dual carriageways will outweigh any perceived advantage which can be attributed to tolerating that speed - high speed closure on slower moving vehicles and cyclists, perceived intimidation, more likely to tailgate aggressively, SMIDSY impacts from right hand turners etc. That is why in my mind we should be using covert techniques in these areas, combined with high visibility repeated signing leaving people in no doubt that 'excessive' speed will be punished.

This particular story is again full of the usual anomalies
and
How do these two statements square. If the road had improved so dramatically, and this was directly attributable to speed, then why are 26 speeders still being caught in 45 minutes at 85mph or over.
Is this not a glaring example of the misuse of the RTTM benefit illusion?

So, if we believe the KSI reduction figures (49%) then, if there is still a high percentage of drivers speeding, how do the camera partnership claim it as their success. Indeed by the feeling of shock outlined in the report, it would suggest that speeding might even be increasing, so this would fly in the face of the speed/collision link.

If the 49% reduction or even a portion of it was to be accepted then this must be largely due to a combination of road improvement, and increased concentration gained in part from raised awareness of camera enforcement.

It can logically have little or nothing to do with speed reduction directly attributable to the overt positioning of the camera van at that location.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Things must have changed since I was last there then, although my last visit to Barrow was in 92.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

They prosecuted a bloke for making a "salute" at a scamvan last year. He had previously been done for an alleged 44 in a 40 (per tabloid) - and gave a double hander to the operator - at 20 mph Arguably - he had taken both hands off the wheel to do this....

_________________
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.

Agree with Ian that the article does not make sense - if casualties are reducing and people are still speeding - then the accidents are due to some the prime cause - and in this case - it appears to be the sighting of the van. It does not say anything about the condition of this vehicle though - perhaps a tyre or brake pad was wearing...

Will agree that 90+ mph on dual carriageway such as this one is OTT given that there will be cyclists, junctions and whatever...Perhaps instead of hidden scamvans, they would do better to have both marked and unmarked vehicles patrolling this stretch to deter the excesses.

_________________
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.

Pardon my ignorance. What's a double-hander. Is it a reporter's name perchance?

I let my passengers do the "saluting"....'face pulling'....'nose thumbing'...'raspberry blowing' ...'coffee bean handshaking'...('mooning!!!'...oohhHHhhoo... )

Ner-ner-nah-ner-nerrrrrr!!...Can't catch me !

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)

Brings to mind a story told to me by a colleague of mine. His brother was heading up a dual-carriageway with his mate when a police car pulled alongside in L2. As they glanced across they couldn't believe their eyes when they saw the coppa in the passenger seating making what appeared to be an exaggerated 'w$nk%' gesture at them across the front of his body.
Thinking the cops were having a lark, brothers mate made an unmistakeable 'coffee bean shake' gesture back, whereupon the cop car switched on the music and lights and pulled them over. They'd actually been trying to indicate to mateys brother to but his seat belt on - he'd forgotten to when they stopped for a wee wee a couple of miles back

Nice one R-P.




'V' x 'V' OOP YA'S !

Mind you, in my younger days it had a different meaning, most lads only needed 'one hand' to do 'it'...........others (me included ! ) found it neccessary to use two..........






...............to turn the 'starting handle' on the car !!

_________________
"CAMERAS "DO NOT" SAVE LIVES" !!
(Richard Brunstrom Says so !!)

Nodody is catching this guy, not even the helicopter

Click Me (12MB download)

There is a higher quality version of the above video for anybody who want's it, but it weighs in at 40MB.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

If 'speeding' was a rare or minority behaviour then this point might make some sense. But speeding is a behaviour exhibited by the vast majority. The law has drifted out of step with normal responsible human behaviour.

We could argue if the law is right or wrong and we could argue if enforcement practice is right or wrong in legal terms. But - and this is the important bit - this particular speed camera caused serious danger. Safety is a far higher ideal than the law. We must look at safety first and the law second.

What if the chap in the crashed car had died? It was mainly luck that he didn't. You might argue that the higher speeds caught on the same camera might have led to death, but all the evidence suggests that despite endemic speeding very few crashes are caused or contributed to by otherwise legal motorists exceeding a speed limit.

I'd also like to point out that the upgraded A11 where this crash took place is of higher specification than thousands of miles of unrestricted Autobahn.

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

Not quite - the law has drifted out of step with our ability break it without even realising it perhaps. It needs looking at I'd agree, but that should not give carte-blanche to everyone to ignore it it the meantime.



Sounds like an indavertantly powerful argument in favour of re-concealing speed cameras rather than binning them altogether



It would have been very sad



Just as sad as those that are caused by normal reponsible motorists exceeding the speed limit.



Irrelevant. Germany is not the UK, their drivers are trained differently, the people are different and when they have crashes on those Autobahns they can be bloody big ones. That comparison is becomng a bit old now Paul.

Keep trying if you like, you are unlikely to convince me to change my mind. As I said before, we are viewing this facet of the issue from opposite mindsets and I doubt if we'll ever fully agree.

I may have missed something but where is the evidence he was speeding.

I followed a van through a 40mph zone the other day, he was only doing about 35 to 40 but that didn't stop him slamming the anchors on at every speed camera.

Even the highways agency can see that drivers braking hard for cameras is a problem QUOTE drivers braking sharply as they approach a camera. have a look at my topic about the highways agency stating that cameras cause congestion (and it would seem accidents)

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

:twisted: I think they missed one of their ususal tricks. Normally TPTB seem to fall over themselves to credit scameras, talivans and other speed enforcement for any improvements, but this time they allowed this gem to slip out:

Not scameras then? Whoops.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I wasn't involved in this prosecution although I know the bobby who reported the driver.

When I worked on the vans I would get a finger or two from less than one percent of the public.

I concluded that meant over 99% support for the safety camera vans!!

My statistical calculation analysis and conclusion was approved and validated by the DfT .

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian