Driver panicked when spotted camera van

[Zeeky]

It doesn't make sense to judge driving as safe or not safe simply on whether or not there is an adverse result.

[Fazt]

Exige77 said:

Same old same old.

If he had crashed, if the "Learner riders" had turned right, if the pottential pedestrians has jumped in the road, If If If.

Well none of these "Ifs" happened.

He overtook, was going a bit fast and got done for speeding. The scamera van added to all the "If's" by being an extra risk to an "If" happening.

No wonder this country is where it is. Everybody wants to be wrapped in cotton wool and drive eveywhere at 40.

The spineless will inherit the Earth (what's left of it)

Ex77

^^^^agree^^^^

just because there is a speed limit doesn’t' mean that its safe, equally it doesn't mean that its all of a sudden dangerous to exceed it.

[Zeeky]

You are not agreeing with that though. You are agreeing with the statement that if nothing adverse happens then the driving is safe. That seems to me to be a worryingly careless way of assessing safety.

Edited by Zeeky on Wednesday 9th January 13:32

[Exige77]

Zeeky said:

You are not agreeing with that though. You are agreeing with the statement that if nothing adverse happens then the driving is safe. That seems to me to be a worryingly careless way of assessing safety.

Edited by Zeeky on Wednesday 9th January 13:32

I saw what happened and "assessed" it as safe (imho) Bit fast but safe.

Others have said what if this or that happened ?

Well it didn't happen.

We don't want to send kids up chimneys or down mines but the H&S brigade are just stiffling the country.

Ex77

[The Wookie]

Exige77 said:

I saw what happened and "assessed" it as safe (imho) Bit fast but safe.

Others have said what if this or that happened ?

Well it didn't happen.

We don't want to send kids up chimneys or down mines but the H&S brigade are just stiffling the country.

Ex77

Actually I was more giving my opinion on why I wouldn't have carried out the overtake, which might be considered to partially justify the camera's location.

I hate the damn vans but as I've said (and had a tedious argument about before) he didn't see or anticipate the camera van so what's to say he'd see or anticipate one of the many other potential things that could have happened during the overtake?

Fact is if it had been a copper in a patrol car sat there waiting for someone to do something stupid then it would be like t'good old days and no-one would be whingeing despite the only main difference being that it would be a coppers witness account and we wouldn't be watching it on the internet.

[Grenoble]

The Wookie said:

This spot here?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=a631&hl=en&amp...

Two turnings for a parking and rest area (probably in use as people are wandering about) that you can't see in the footage which he likely passed on the wrong side of the road.

If that is the spot then 113 was way over the top. If he couldn't make the pass at 70/75 then he didn't have enough space for the move (still speeding but would have probably got just the 3 points)

[dazco]

Exige77 said:

Same old same old.

If he had crashed, if the "Learner riders" had turned right, if the pottential pedestrians has jumped in the road, If If If.

Well none of these "Ifs" happened.

He overtook, was going a bit fast and got done for speeding. The scamera van added to all the "If's" by being an extra risk to an "If" happening.

No wonder this country is where it is. Everybody wants to be wrapped in cotton wool and drive eveywhere at 40.

The spineless will inherit the Earth (what's left of it)

Ex77

Nonsense

Safety is all about considering the 'what ifs'.

Personally I think the driver is a cock. How, and why, should any of those learner bikists expect anyone to be flying past at 113mph? Check mirror? No-one there, pull out and suddenly there is someone there.

Poor manoeuvre.

[Devil2575]

Exige77 said:

I saw what happened and "assessed" it as safe (imho) Bit fast but safe.

Others have said what if this or that happened ?

Well it didn't happen.

We don't want to send kids up chimneys or down mines but the H&S brigade are just stiffling the country.

Ex77

That depends on how you look at it.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in reducing accidents/fatalities knows that you do not wait for someone to be killed/injured before you act.

Just because nothing bad happened now does not mean that the driver was not demonstrating what would be refered to as 'At risk behaviour'.

I work in an industry where if we get it wrong we risk killing people. Not random people we don't know, but colleagues. It we get it very wrong we risk killing members of the public. The answer to preventing a situation where we kill someone is not to wait till we do then address the problem, it is to identify the behaviours that lead to incidents and prevent them.

http://emeetingplace.com/safetyblog/wp-content/upl...

The following is an excerpt from a safety message to employess where I work

"The Safety Pyramid is based on real data from industrial accidents. It shows that for every fatality, 30 serious injuries have also occurred. It is also estimated that there are a thousand occasions when people undertake ‘At Risk’ behaviours for every reported injury.
The problem is you never know when your luck will run out!
If you can eliminate ‘At Risk’ behaviours then you will eliminate the hazard and hence eliminate the accidents"


Just because no one was killed or inured does not mean that the driver did not do something wrong.

I don't imagine that anyone who has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving thinks that they will kill someone until they do. So is the answer to simply lock up those who do or to try and get people who drive like this to consider the potential consequences before the worst happens?

[ant leigh]

Devil2575 said:

That depends on how you look at it.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in reducing accidents/fatalities knows that you do not wait for someone to be killed/injured before you act.

Just because nothing bad happened now does not mean that the driver was not demonstrating what would be refered to as 'At risk behaviour'.

I work in an industry where if we get it wrong we risk killing people. Not random people we don't know, but colleagues. It we get it very wrong we risk killing members of the public. The answer to preventing a situation where we kill someone is not to wait till we do then address the problem, it is to identify the behaviours that lead to incidents and prevent them.

http://emeetingplace.com/safetyblog/wp-content/upl...

The following is an excerpt from a safety message to employess where I work

"The Safety Pyramid is based on real data from industrial accidents. It shows that for every fatality, 30 serious injuries have also occurred. It is also estimated that there are a thousand occasions when people undertake ‘At Risk’ behaviours for every reported injury.
The problem is you never know when your luck will run out!
If you can eliminate ‘At Risk’ behaviours then you will eliminate the hazard and hence eliminate the accidents"


Just because no one was killed or inured does not mean that the driver did not do something wrong.

I don't imagine that anyone who has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving thinks that they will kill someone until they do. So is the answer to simply lock up those who do or to try and get people who drive like this to consider the potential consequences before the worst happens?

In workplace safety a key element is that everybody is responsible for safety, not just the person carrying out the activity.
In this case not just the driver but groups of slower moving bikes with no 'overtaking gaps' etc.

And before I get flamed, overtaking is allowed in the highway code and the highway code does place the onus on vehicles that are holding up others to act to prevent that by for example moving to one side to let through.

The driver was going to fast yes, but if we really want to go all out H & S that doesn't mean everybody else couldn't have done more.

The judgement of the case was also that his actions were 'careless' not 'reckless'

[Devil2575]

ant leigh said:

[b]In workplace safety a key element is that everybody is responsible for safety, not just the person carrying out the activity.
In this case not just the driver but groups of slower moving bikes with no 'overtaking gaps' etc.[/b]

And before I get flamed, overtaking is allowed in the highway code and the highway code does place the onus on vehicles that are holding up others to act to prevent that by for example moving to one side to let through.

The driver was going to fast yes, but if we really want to go all out H & S that doesn't mean everybody else couldn't have done more.

The judgement of the case was also that his actions were 'careless' not 'reckless'

I agree, everyone is responsible for safety. However i'm not sure it means what you are refering too in this case. We are are responsible for safety means to me that if I see someone doing something wrong I am duty bound to point it out, rather than leaving it to the management to point out. There is a set of procedures which we should work too and if you observe anyone working outside of these you should point it out. So an analogy would be that if you observed someone breaking the highway code you should challenge them, rather than leaving it to the Police. Be your brothers keeper.

I'm sure not every other road user was behaving perfectly in line with the highway code in this instance, but the driver of the 911 was was several orders of magnitude outside of the rules of the road.

[ant leigh]

Devil2575 said:

ant leigh said:

[b]In workplace safety a key element is that everybody is responsible for safety, not just the person carrying out the activity.
In this case not just the driver but groups of slower moving bikes with no 'overtaking gaps' etc.[/b]

And before I get flamed, overtaking is allowed in the highway code and the highway code does place the onus on vehicles that are holding up others to act to prevent that by for example moving to one side to let through.

The driver was going to fast yes, but if we really want to go all out H & S that doesn't mean everybody else couldn't have done more.

The judgement of the case was also that his actions were 'careless' not 'reckless'

I agree, everyone is responsible for safety. However i'm not sure it means what you are refering too in this case. We are are responsible for safety means to me that if I see someone doing something wrong I am duty bound to point it out, rather than leaving it to the management to point out. There is a set of procedures which we should work too and if you observe anyone working outside of these you should point it out. So an analogy would be that if you observed someone breaking the highway code you should challenge them, rather than leaving it to the Police. Be your brothers keeper.

I'm sure not every other road user was behaving perfectly in line with the highway code in this instance, but the driver of the 911 was was several orders of magnitude outside of the rules of the road.

The point I was attempting to make is that often motorists drive slowly along (siteseeing, sunday crawl out, not leaving reasonable gaps etc) holding up other motorists and/or making it difficult to pass.
Then when they finally 'go for it', especially if there is an incident, get all holier-than-thou pointing fingers and never once bothering to ask if they might actually have been more considerate themselves.
They are often not even aware that they might not have been following the highway code themselves. From my experience driving in other countries I have to say this does appear to be more of a 'British' attitude.

[NWTony]

To be fair I've been caught behind escorted learner bikers and the instructors, presuming that's what they are, deliberately drive in the centre to make passing difficult / impossible. It was very frustrating on roads I could have been enjoying myself on...

Maybe that stretch was the first place he could overtake after fumfty miles of lingering behind a learner biker? To be honest it's not the straights that are annoying, its the slow crawl through the bends.

Still shouldn't have locked up mind, that's what got him careless driving I think.

[eccles]

Don't Porsche cars have ABS fitted? Surprised he locked up that much in a modern car.

[Bohally]

barker22 said:

putting lives at risk
The camera van was responsible for the panic braking.

No he wasn't. The driver of the Porsche didn't have to hammer the brakes like that.

[Red 4]

Exige77 said:

Same old same old.

If he had crashed, if the "Learner riders" had turned right, if the pottential pedestrians has jumped in the road, If If If.

Well none of these "Ifs" happened.

He overtook, was going a bit fast and got done for speeding. The scamera van added to all the "If's" by being an extra risk to an "If" happening.

Ex77

I agree about the same old same old. You seem to be of the opinion of "oh well, no harm done" on this and a number of other threads concerning speeding.

This was an appalling piece of driving. No "ifs".

The camera van added nothing. Apart from revealing the Porsche driver had very close to zero observational skills and a very heavy right foot (applied to both the accelerator and brake pedal in relatively quick succession).

[Exige77]

Red 4 said:

Exige77 said:

Same old same old.

If he had crashed, if the "Learner riders" had turned right, if the pottential pedestrians has jumped in the road, If If If.

Well none of these "Ifs" happened.

He overtook, was going a bit fast and got done for speeding. The scamera van added to all the "If's" by being an extra risk to an "If" happening.

Ex77

I agree about the same old same old. You seem to be of the opinion of "oh well, no harm done" on this and a number of other threads concerning speeding.

This was an appalling piece of driving. No "ifs".

The camera van added nothing. Apart from revealing the Porsche driver had very close to zero observational skills and a very heavy right foot (applied to both the accelerator and brake pedal in relatively quick succession).

Same old same old.

These vans are put in locations where you can't see them until it's too late. Nothing to do with lack of observation.

As some have said, if the Talevan had been "another vehicle" about to pull out our Porsche driving friend he was more than able to stop.

He was going too fast and has been punished. Why do some want to make it appear much worse than it is ?

Ex77

[Red 4]

Exige77 said:

These vans are put in locations where you can't see them until it's too late. Nothing to do with lack of observation.

As some have said, if the Talevan had been "another vehicle" about to pull out our Porsche driving friend he was more than able to stop.

He was going too fast and has been punished.

Ex77

It looks like a nice straight road to me without many places to hide a van. We'll have to disagree on the drivers observation skills.

As for being able to stop if another vehicle pulled out I'd say it's debateable. The driver almost binned it onto the grass when he braked. Poor car control following an over-reaction. Did you also notice the reactions of the following motorcyclists (who were under tuition) when he braked ?

I'm not disputing the punishment. It was fully deserved imo.

Top marks to Porsche though for making some very good brakes (even if they did lock up momentarily.)

[Vipers]

Hard to believe some of you are supporting him, he is a tt, fked up and got caught. No ifs and d buts.

[14-7]

Bohally said:

barker22 said:

putting lives at risk
The camera van was responsible for the panic braking.

No he wasn't. The driver of the Porsche didn't have to hammer the brakes like that.

No, we live in a world where nothing that we do is our fault.

It can't be the drivers fault he lamped his brakes on due to seeing the camera van. The actual operative in the camera van is responsible for that. After all, he had his feet at the controls.

When will this fk wittery end! How can someone else be responsible for your own driving!

[oldsoak]

14-7 said:

No, we live in a world where nothing that we do is our fault.

It can't be the drivers fault he lamped his brakes on due to seeing the camera van. The actual operative in the camera van is responsible for that. After all, he had his feet at the controls.

When will this fk wittery end! How can someone else be responsible for your own driving!

It'll end when all the feckwits pile into that wall you and the rest of us are banging our heads on ...lets just hope no-one is standing in front of it when they do