Safe Speed Forums

Let me try turning this one upside down to see if you can see it from the other perspective.

You say the driver was responsible for the crash not the camera van. (I agree at the micro level).

If drivers are responsible for their crashes why do we need roads policing at all? Because some drivers are irresponsible, right?

So we know we need roads policing to reduce crashes caused by irresponsible drivers. That's the purpose of roads policing.

In this case roads policing intended to reduce irresponsible drivers' crashes actually caused an irresponsible driver to crash. And you don't smell a rat?

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

We need a "priceless" smiley!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Has to be the quote of the year so far.

By the way - think the new emoticons are great ... can see this one being a favourite with the Mad Doc.

Cannot think why .....

_________________
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.

Top drawer. I am going to re-use this (crediting you of course).

That particular kitty is called 'Neko' and has quite a history. See here:
http://www.angelfire.com/ct/neko

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

Sadly Paul, the only rat odour permeating these nostrils emanates from this thread. Why are you all so insistant on trying to get me to..



Does everyone really need to get me 'on-side' on this one?
You've all articulated your points very well, so well as far as opthers are concerned in fact that it's become a bit like a back-slappers convention in here
But I don't, can't, won't buy it.

I tend to agree that the fact that a single camera van may have acted as the catalyst to a crash is not, of itself, a good reason for it not being there.

However, I do think (and doubt whether it happens) the people responsible for camera/camera van locations should have in mind the possibility of a catalytic reaction and ensure that they are sited where they are clearly visible well before the point of enforcement.

For my part, I believe that you're missing a whole dimension, a whole layer, when looking at this problem. I agree with your points but I judge that your conclusions are not based on a wide enough perspective. I've considered it kind and courteous to point out the missing parts of the perspective.

I'm perfectly prepared to continue because I think these are worthy, interesting and important points.

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

It seems to me that both sides of the argument are actually correct but, as safespeed said, arguing different arguments.

The driver is at fault for crashing in the first place as ultimately he is responsible for his vehicle. My driving instructor said to me on my first lesson that whilst the car is parked on the side of the road it wont cause an accident so when you start driving it any accident that happens is at least partly your fault. Obviously this is a very simplistic statement but it does have a grain of truth to it.

However one of the key elements of road development has been alerting drivers to threats that might happen to them. You have signs warning you of a bend before you get there, you have signs that tell you you are approaching a school... you even have signs warning you to be aware that low flying aircraft go overhead.

All of this signage is their to help you make decisions about your road behaviour, and to warn you about potential distractions before they occur.

Indeed farmers are not allowed to erect advertising billboards the length of the motorway as they are (rightly) viewed as a distraction.

In fact every effort is made to keep drivers focused on the job in hand but mobile speed cameras are different....

I know they are signed but with the amount of cameras there are now everywhere you drive you go past speed camera signs, just imagine the effect if they were to do the same with bend warning signs. Chuck a sign on every bend and eventually everyone will take no particular notice of them.

They then position a van where they know it will cause a major distraction to road users (and must know that a lot of road users will become unpredictable because of it) and create a situation that, to me, reminds me of what happens when you are on a motorway and there is a accident on the opposite carriageway. Traffic becomes unpredictable and you end up with an accident occuring as a lot of drivers are distracted.

If the new emphasis is to be that drivers are now to be regarded as competant enough to deal with these problems why not remove all the signs that warn you of a tight bend, after all a good driver with spot the disappearing point and the bad ones...... well tough luck mate.

So what i am trying to say (badly) is that it boils down to a duty of care by the state not to deliberately do things that endanger you!