M4 closed after collision at speed camera van site
Discussion
The M4 was closed this morning for four hours between junctions 17 Chippenham and 16 Swindon West.
The accident was right infront of a bridge that the Wiltshire SCP regularly place a camera van on.
The local news had a camera at the scene which clearly showed a white van sat on the bridge behind the wreckage, but not close enough to be identifiable.
Did anyone see them there early this morning?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wi
The accident was right infront of a bridge that the Wiltshire SCP regularly place a camera van on.
The local news had a camera at the scene which clearly showed a white van sat on the bridge behind the wreckage, but not close enough to be identifiable.
Did anyone see them there early this morning?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wi
That article says nothing about the causes. I hope it wasn't anything to do with speeding. Probably tailgating was the issue. Its getting so bad nowadays, people thinking they are safe 2 metres behind you, but what if you have stop suddenly? Not a chance in hell. It really annoys me, and I always try to move out of the way of them.
Polarbert said:
That article says nothing about the causes. I hope it wasn't anything to do with speeding. Probably tailgating was the issue. Its getting so bad nowadays, people thinking they are safe 2 metres behind you, but what if you have stop suddenly? Not a chance in hell. It really annoys me, and I always try to move out of the way of them.
You are spot on.....too many numpty drivers who think they can drive and obviously cant.
Pity we dont have vans to detect numpties.
los angeles said:
You are spot on.....too many numpty drivers who think they can drive and obviously cant.
I think police cars cause more accidents than motorists. When you are driving and see a police car ahead what do you do? You stub out that cigarette, drop the cell phone you are using to make a call, struggle to slip on your seat belt, and slam on the brakes. Huh!
Next to every accident you see a police car. Coincidence? I think not!
>> Edited by los angeles on Thursday 2nd March 20:33
Its a good job that the numpties have the forethought to crash near a Police car, at least we dont have to travel very far to stick them in the book, it gets a bit tiring on the arms all that 'push and pull' from one side of the County to the other.
deeps said:
Sadly, this just adds weight to the debate that they should be there.
Please tell me how?
If their aim is to somehow reduce accidents by merely placing camera vans on bridges, this proves that it isn't working.
I thought it was simple.
When the van is there, no Collisions......when its not there, the road is closed because some idiot was demonstrating that they couldnt drive in a safe manner.
rushdriver said:
I was caught in it this morning. I nipped into the service's which are just before the junction and happened to end up having a chat with Jenson Button.
He was driving a white BMW M5 by the way, looked very nice with a BAR number plate.
John
Nice job if you can get it eh?
Tonyrec said:
I was caught in it this morning. I nipped into the service's which are just before the junction and happened to end up having a chat with Jenson Button.
He was driving a white BMW M5 by the way, looked very nice with a BAR number plate.
John
Nice job if you can get it eh?
What suprised me about the entire situation (the crash, not meeting JB) was that people were getting really annoyed. The service's (predictably) was packed and because the motorway was not moving then no-one could get out, cue people shouting and getting annoyed at each other etc etc.
JB was a nice guy though, a lot taller than I expected.
John
Tonyrec said:
Sadly, this just adds weight to the debate that they should be there.
I'm afraid I don't agree
If a camera was there ("if" being the important word) then the scenario probably was:
1. Guy sees the camera van and drops anchor
2. Guy behind who hasn't seen the camera and/or the brake lights, ploughs into the the back of him
Conclusion - if the camera van wasn't there, there wouldn't have been an accident.
This is exactly the sort of scenario that many of us have been predicting, and is one of the main reasons why many more enlightened countries don't use mobile camera vans.
Having said all that, I've been using that stretch of the M4 most days since Christmas and I haven't seen a camera van there so far this week.
Tonyrec said:
I thought it was simple.
When the van is there, no Collisions......when its not there, the road is closed because some idiot was demonstrating that they couldnt drive in a safe manner.
But are you guessing that the van wasn't there and you are guessing that collisions don't happen when it is?
By the look of the wreckage the car took a very heavy impact to the rear, as if it had slammed on the brakes for some reason, the most obvious reason I can think of being having sighted a bridge talivan.
The same thing happened a few weeks ago when a car and trailor ended up facing the wrong way after spotting a talivan.
Imagine a little experiment of standing on the bridge waiting for an accident to happen, I think one would have a very long wait. Therefore theoretically there's not much chance of a talivan being witness to an accident, but in practice this doesn't seem to be the case. They see lots of panic braking and near misses, and scarper when the inevitable happens!
Another theoretical experiment could be how to make an accident happen, without actually being on the motorway. Throwing something from a bridge could do it, although parking a white van above lane two would have a good chance too. (I know in a perfect world it shouldn't).
Tony, why do the police endorse this crazy, dangerous activity?
Do you know if it would be legal for me to park a white van above lane two and film the traffic from the side door with a camcorder? The footage could be interesting.
>> Edited by deeps on Friday 3rd March 00:45
los angeles said:
You are spot on.....too many numpty drivers who think they can drive and obviously cant.
I think police cars cause more accidents than motorists. When you are driving and see a police car ahead what do you do? You stub out that cigarette, drop the cell phone you are using to make a call, struggle to slip on your seat belt, and slam on the brakes. Huh!
Next to every accident you see a police car. Coincidence? I think not!
>> Edited by los angeles on Thursday 2nd March 20:33
I think that he was agreeing with me about the fact that everyone seems to tailgate nowadays. And I agree with you LA about the police. There are so many rediculous laws around nowadays that everyone is afraid of doing something.
james_j said:
Sadly, this just adds weight to the debate that they should be there.
I have read the report. I can't see anything to back up your assertion. Do you really mean this accident adds weight to the pro-camera argument? How would a van have prevented this accident?
Nothing to do with accident reduction - increase in accident rate justifies permanent scamera. Everyone knows where it is so accident rate drops back to normal. Bingo! 'Safety' Camera has done a good job using rotten statistics.
los angeles said:
I think police cars cause more accidents than motorists. When you are driving and see a police car ahead what do you do? You stub out that cigarette, drop the cell phone you are using to make a call, struggle to slip on your seat belt, and slam on the brakes. Huh!
Next to every accident you see a police car. Coincidence? I think not!
You've seen a police car?!
You could always argue (rightly so) that teh person behind should be aware of what's ahppening ahead of him and be leaving a goodly gap to teh car in front .. however ..
I know that when I'm out on the road I'm scouring every bridge, side park area, clump of tall grass .. anywhere a van might be parked up .. I *almost* always drive within the limit .. but even I'm so paranoid about getting a ticket that my attention is definately diverted from the road more than it should.
If both drivers were scouring the same bridge for a van and the rear driver saw it a second later when teh front driver had already hit the anchors then the incident will happen ..
In reality there's many contributory factors to an incidenet, but take one factor away and the incident doesn't happen .. remove mobile vans and hey presto!
We're always covering old ground here on PH, but that's because those that dictate policy don't *appear* to see what's happening .. so teh same old same old situations happen all over again.
I know that when I'm out on the road I'm scouring every bridge, side park area, clump of tall grass .. anywhere a van might be parked up .. I *almost* always drive within the limit .. but even I'm so paranoid about getting a ticket that my attention is definately diverted from the road more than it should.
If both drivers were scouring the same bridge for a van and the rear driver saw it a second later when teh front driver had already hit the anchors then the incident will happen ..
In reality there's many contributory factors to an incidenet, but take one factor away and the incident doesn't happen .. remove mobile vans and hey presto!
We're always covering old ground here on PH, but that's because those that dictate policy don't *appear* to see what's happening .. so teh same old same old situations happen all over again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff