Safe Speed Forums

This just in by email:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Death at camera site.
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:07:35 +0100
From: [withheld]
To: <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>

Mr Smith,

As a law abiding motorist it concerned me this week when I was driving along a safe road I know well, to see a speed camera (gatso) pointing in the opposite direction, and about 50 yards prior to the camera, a 'Fatal Colission' sign.

It seems that somebody lost control of their vehicle, coming into the area where they would have first seen the speed camera and (had they not been looking at their speedo) would have been starting to brake.

Below are links to the local paper coverage of the death, and a site listing the camera location.
http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/lo ... _crash.php
http://www.abd.org.uk/cameras/buckinghamshire.htm

Being a resident of this area, I have known of this camera for many years, and have never once seen or heard of an accident at that location. The camera is located on a steep downhill road with a slight bend to the right and woodland to the left. The camera is partly concealed by the shadows of the trees, and occasionally their foliage.

I'm no scientist, but to me it would seem that this unfortunate driver saw the camera, panic braked, lost control and as a result died.

Can this be used as some sort of evidence that these devices, rather than saving lives, actually kill direclty?

Many thanks
=========================

I'll be looking into this.

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

Is this the forum of sweeping assumptions!
Heres mine then.

Doesnt sound like a 30mph crash to me!

Reassuring this idiot only took himself out. I have family who visit High Wycombe regularly. Their safety is now less compromised.

looking at this article, the bloke was local, he very probably would have known the road quite well and the scamera is old, so he would have known that it existed if he knew the road, however he might have forgotten. He could have been under the influence, as the local paper might have chosen not to say that (to protect the guys name or cos they hadn't got tests through at time of writing)

i don't think the road where he crashed is a 30 limit (think it's a 40 or NSL, but can't remember the limits on that road and don't know excatly where it is) or , if i'm wrong, it's just inside a 30 zone. My mum has seen a car flip in a 10 zone (driver wasn't paying attention and hit a kerb-wasn't speeding, in fact was talking to friends walking alongside).
Why does the car flipping mean that it was doing more than 30? You could probably flip a car in that same place at 20, if not less.

Looking at all the evidence I think it was the driver braking for the scamera and wheels locked, causing him to go off the road, hit a tree which lifted his front wheel up and flipped the car. It doesn't matter if the guy was speeding or not.

i'm surprised that TVSCP hasn't blanketed the A404 with cameras, there have been lots of accidents on it (mostly at junctions-misjudge speed or muppets walking out into road late at night) and they have put lots of signs saying "104 injury accidents in the past 3 years in next 50 yards" or whatever, 25 yards before a junction i don't think the roads meeting at these junctions have these signs, dispite traffic coming along that way having to give way, and causing most, if not all of the accidents.

What makes this fatal crash even more sad is that the funeral is going to be at Amersham Crem. this is on the A404, and people will have to pass the site as they get there from Wycombe.

Simon

Its a shame whenever someone dies on the roads, what i find staggering is that an apparantly "anti-safespeed" person has logged in and said to no intensive purposes that he deserved it.

I do have one umbridge with the overall sentiment of this thread, the speed camera did not cause tha acciddent bad driving or some other factor did.

Speed cameras are inanimate objects.

Given the time of the accident and the profile of the others I would expect that we will be looking at an above safe blood alcohol limit when the dust settles.

RIP young driver may your family recover from the grief in time

This is what I'm assuming.

He was well over the speed limit.

He was over the drink limit.

Shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong.

I think it's a disgrace that you are happy to look to blame an inanimate object which is possibly responsible for the saving of numerous lives, to satisfy your own selfish need for speed.

Innocent pedestrians and other road users have a right to be protected from the type of driving I believe has been displayed here.

Whenever an accident (fatal or otherwise) occurs that would not if the speed camera were not present, it will normally be possible to put the blame on some other factor. For example, last year on the A48 North of Chepstow, I saw one car being tailgated by another. The lead driver braked for a speed camera and her car was written off as the 4x4 tailgating her ploughed into her rear.

I say that in my example, the speed camera was to blame for two reasons:

1. If the scamera wasn't there, the innocent driver would not have had to brake, and thus compromise her safety for the sake of preserving her license;
2. If scameras in general were replaced by the police officers that the scameras have replaced, there may have been a police officer to pull the tailgating lunatic in the 4x4, thus preventing the official cause of the smash from happening in the first place

Just a thought,

_________________
Will

driver drunk, very likely. though i guess (maybe wrongly) that the speed camera distracted him, and so the accident was there, and not a bit further down the road.

anyway, it's good that the passengers survived.

seems odd that there is no mention of the injuries sustained by the passengers, perhaps they were minor ones. was the driver wearing a seatbelt, as it seems odd that none of the passengers were badly hurt, whereas the driver died? Also, if the driver was speeding as you seem to maintain then how come the passengers appear to got off without being hurt too much? surely that if the guy was speeding then he would have seriously injured and perhaps killed passengers.

I don't blame the speed camera-the driver shouldn't have been so distracted by it. However it appears to be a "contributory factor" to the crash.



I think it's a disgrace to blame an inanimate and vague thing as "speed" as the Government seem to be doing "speed kills" and all that. It's the driver's fault, but the speed camera seems to be a part in the crash (i don't know the full story). The tree played a big part in the crash, but i don't here "cut down the tree" from anyone, likewise i wouldn't remove the speed camera because it was involved in this crash, it might indirectly save two lives next week, by getting a driver banned that drives drunk often. Still think that clear signage of what the danger is is 100 times more effective than a GATSO, or dumping traf pol to catch and stop speeders instantly.

Anyway, i think we should all stop assuming and wait for the offical answer from TVP, however of course this'll be biased as they assume that anyone braking for a camera is speeding (which might not be the case, especially if the driver is drunk).

Soren, I respect you for bothering to register, dispite me disaggreeing with you. I hope others that are "anti-safespeed" follow your lead and bother to join, instead of posting personal attacks, and not bothering to debate.

Simon

Yet that's exactly what's happened in many parts of France where they've woken up to the dangers of idylic-looking, tree-lined roads. Rather a lot of people were dying because otherwise minor loss of control turned to fatality once a tree was involved. "Cut down the trees!" was exactly the cry, and one that was heeded in many cases.

I suspect that the offside of the car impacted a tree and the offside wing and suspension were pushed back into the driver's space. FWIW, it's very plausible that one side of a car is totalled with the other side almost untouched. For example, many years ago, a horse jumped over a low fence into the road and landed on my car. The roof was crushed down to bonnet level on the passenger's side whereas my side was untouched. The attending police officer commented that it was fortunate I didn't have a passenger at the time because no-one could have survived on that side. Thankfully, I walked away unscathed. After that experience, I don't find the passenger's survival at all odd.

_________________
Will

I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that the driver was drunk until you've seen the evidence.

I suspect it's often the case that a sober "designated driver", knowing that it's not him the police are after at 12.30 in the morning, will exercise a bit of bravado to impress his mates, which occasionally leads to tragic consequences.

These "five kids in a car" accidents are depressingly common and by no means all (or even the majority) are caused by drink.

_________________
"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

Shall I tell you what I think is a disgrace?

To perversely highlight an individual case in which a life was lost, on the basis that it offers support to the argument against cameras. What about higlighting all the other cases where lives were lost due in part or solely to the fact that a driver was speeding?

To speculate or suspect as to the cause without being in full possession of the facts.

When someone come up with the 'won't somebody think of the children' line as an anti-speed argument they are acused of being emotive, what about this thread? Life lost at camera site is pretty emotive in my book.

Here, Here, Rigpig.

Exactly why has this been posted in this manner and under a heading like this? What is Paul looking into?

This is a desperate attempt by an anti-camera fanatic (now I'm not in possesion of the facts) to discredit the safety/speed camera system.

I'm surprised Paul has made a posting of this nature because he is usually so careful in this sort of matter.

_________________
It's Champion Man

I very much share your concerns. I've never used a personal tragedy to make a point. In fact I abhor the idea.

However, "dead baby" stories, publicity and stunts are quite common in the UK road safety debate.

Sometimes I think we should compete head on with mindless emotional "little Johnny killed by speeding driver" stories. Does the end justify the means? I really don't know. I'd like to win the debate with honest, fair and accurate analysis, but the "other side" is using every trick in the book.

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

He can drive as drunk as he wants, even on the wrong side of the road and steering with his teeth, as long as he's under that limit a camera will never get him banned.

And even if by some chance it did get him banned he'd stil drive (like the 1 million or so others) without licence and insurance as his chance of being caught is next to nil without traffic police.

David Begg is quoted in the magazine article elsewhere on the forum as stating that Drink Driving was responsible for 20,000 deaths or serious injuries on the roads last year. That is 3.5 times more than bikers but the police will turn out in their hundreds on a Sunday afternoon at bike routes and can not be found after 11 on a Friday night.

Related to this:

- stats published by Dft state that road deaths at 400 of their ststic camera sites were reduced last year.

- stats hidden somewhere deaper in the DfT website )i'll have to find it again and get the link) state that road deaths at 700 static camera went up last year.

Don't see that one getting pulished do you?!?