Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[emmaT2014]

v12Legs said:

emmaT2014 said:

yes there is. as you get older visual accuity, the ability to see small objects, decreases. A 60-year old person is going to have difficulty in seeing a motorcyclist approaching at 40mph at sufficient distance to prevent a collision when pulling out onto the road the motorcyclist is on.
Perhaps moorcyclists should be made aware of this; I'm a motorcyclst and I am. I drive a car too but am not yet 59 or 60.
So it is possible and it does exist.

That doesn't excuse them.
If their vision has deteriorated such that they cannot drive safely, they shouldn't be driving.

i didnt suggest it did excuse them. you said there is no possibiity that evidence exists, it does.

[emmaT2014]

Phatboy317 said:

emmaT2014 said:

yes there is. as you get older visual accuity, the ability to see small objects, decreases. A 60-year old person is going to have difficulty in seeing a motorcyclist approaching at 40mph at sufficient distance to prevent a collision when pulling out onto the road the motorcyclist is on.
Perhaps moorcyclists should be made aware of this; I'm a motorcyclst and I am. I drive a car too but am not yet 59 or 60.
So it is possible and it does exist.

Really?
I'll bet that most drivers who are on the wrong side of 60 would strongly disagree with your opinion.

They will. That doesnt make them right to disagree though does it?

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

...which may just be down to something like publication bias

That's an argument that can be used to dismiss any theory thats evidenced with research though isn't it.

"The reason why all the research points to this conclusion is that no ones publishing the stuff that says otherwise..."

Unless you have a sound basis for making such a claim, such as people who have been unable to get papers published, then you need to be very careful before saying it.

er, I didn't make any claims

But, by the same token, you need to be a bit careful about making assertions such as, "None of the data provides a cast iron proof of anything, but combined they add up to produce a weight of evidence"

There are many potential sources of publication bias, such as who has the wherewithal to conduct such research in the first place.
And any research of a subject is most likely to be commissioned by parties with the most interest in finding one way or the other.
Also, when findings are not likely to be particularly strong in one direction or the other, people are unlikely to bother to publish research which shows in the other direction.

And you also get confirmation bias, ie people are more likely to accept findings which agree with their expectations.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 21st January 14:14

[Phatboy317]

emmaT2014 said:

Phatboy317 said:

emmaT2014 said:

yes there is. as you get older visual accuity, the ability to see small objects, decreases. A 60-year old person is going to have difficulty in seeing a motorcyclist approaching at 40mph at sufficient distance to prevent a collision when pulling out onto the road the motorcyclist is on.
Perhaps moorcyclists should be made aware of this; I'm a motorcyclst and I am. I drive a car too but am not yet 59 or 60.
So it is possible and it does exist.

Really?
I'll bet that most drivers who are on the wrong side of 60 would strongly disagree with your opinion.

They will. That doesnt make them right to disagree though does it?

I take it you're able to back up that assertion then

[emmaT2014]

Phatboy317 said:

emmaT2014 said:

Phatboy317 said:

emmaT2014 said:

yes there is. as you get older visual accuity, the ability to see small objects, decreases. A 60-year old person is going to have difficulty in seeing a motorcyclist approaching at 40mph at sufficient distance to prevent a collision when pulling out onto the road the motorcyclist is on.
Perhaps moorcyclists should be made aware of this; I'm a motorcyclst and I am. I drive a car too but am not yet 59 or 60.
So it is possible and it does exist.

Really?
I'll bet that most drivers who are on the wrong side of 60 would strongly disagree with your opinion.

They will. That doesnt make them right to disagree though does it?

I take it you're able to back up that assertion then

of course

[v12Legs]

emmaT2014 said:

v12Legs said:

emmaT2014 said:

yes there is. as you get older visual accuity, the ability to see small objects, decreases. A 60-year old person is going to have difficulty in seeing a motorcyclist approaching at 40mph at sufficient distance to prevent a collision when pulling out onto the road the motorcyclist is on.
Perhaps moorcyclists should be made aware of this; I'm a motorcyclst and I am. I drive a car too but am not yet 59 or 60.
So it is possible and it does exist.

That doesn't excuse them.
If their vision has deteriorated such that they cannot drive safely, they shouldn't be driving.

i didnt suggest it did excuse them. you said there is no possibiity that evidence exists, it does.

I said there was no possible evidence that could excuse a driver from pulling out when it was not clear.
As you agree that this wouldn't excuse them, my point stands.

[singlecoil]

v12Legs said:

emmaT2014 said:

v12Legs said:

emmaT2014 said:

yes there is. as you get older visual accuity, the ability to see small objects, decreases. A 60-year old person is going to have difficulty in seeing a motorcyclist approaching at 40mph at sufficient distance to prevent a collision when pulling out onto the road the motorcyclist is on.
Perhaps moorcyclists should be made aware of this; I'm a motorcyclst and I am. I drive a car too but am not yet 59 or 60.
So it is possible and it does exist.

That doesn't excuse them.
If their vision has deteriorated such that they cannot drive safely, they shouldn't be driving.

i didnt suggest it did excuse them. you said there is no possibiity that evidence exists, it does.

I said there was no possible evidence that could excuse a driver from pulling out when it was not clear.
As you agree that this wouldn't excuse them, my point stands.

It doesn't stand against the scenario I suggested, though, your protestations to the contrary.

As you have said "there is no possible evidence", I only have to show one exception to demolish your theory. Had you said it was "extremely unlikely that there are such evidence", I would have agreed with you.

[v12Legs]

singlecoil said:

It doesn't stand against the scenario I suggested, though, your protestations to the contrary.

As you have said "there is no possible evidence", I only have to show one exception to demolish your theory. Had you said it was "extremely unlikely that there are such evidence", I would have agreed with you.

If you say so.

[Phatboy317]

emmaT2014 said:

of course

Well, let's have it then, together with the maths which shows how it's possible that someone who can still read a number plate at 20 metres can't see a motorcycle at twice that distance.

[singlecoil]

v12Legs said:

singlecoil said:

It doesn't stand against the scenario I suggested, though, your protestations to the contrary.

As you have said "there is no possible evidence", I only have to show one exception to demolish your theory. Had you said it was "extremely unlikely that there are such evidence", I would have agreed with you.

If you say so.

Good. That now takes us to the reasonable possibility that the court in the case we are discussing was correct.

[V8 Fettler]

vonhosen said:

V8 Fettler said:

vonhosen said:

V8 Fettler said:

You appear to be suggesting that a blinding sun would not (temporarily) blind someone who stared towards the blinding sun, which is a nonsense. The sun is either blinding (leading to someone being temporarily blinded) or not. Unless - in this case - the sun was blinding but wasn't directly aligned with and immediately above the major road? Is that what you are suggesting?

Saccadic masking can be reduced by making a positive effort to look, hence turn head and look, and then look again.

He hasn't been directly quoted in the article so we don't know what words he used exactly, so you keep bleating on about them is pointless.

Saccadic masking is a fact of life, life isn't perfect, we can look & look again but still miss things.

The important thing for the jury is did he show the standard of care required & they've ruled he did.

Is the justice system perfect?
No

Am I worried about a miscarriage of justice in this case?
As you are questioning the outcome based on nothing more than a few lines of media report, I don't see you providing any evidence that means I should be worried there has been a miscarriage of justice.

I'm not going to go around in circles with it anymore, so unless you have substantially more than the article I'll leave you to your tin foil hat.

Bleating? Not at all, merely commenting.

It is certainly an achievement to not see a large red Ducati, unless blinded by the sun of course.

We know that the jury declared the driver not guilty, we don't know how they reached that decision.

The justice system is indeed imperfect.

It's bizarre that you consider that I should provide evidence to you to persuade you that there has been a miscarriage of justice, do you perceive yourself to be some sort of judge and jury?

You are trying to put forward a persuasive argument aren't you?
I'm just pointing out that you aren't putting anything concrete forward & are therefore failing to persuade.

V8 Fettler said:

Substantially more than the article? It doesn't take much to work out that the sun isn't going to be very close to the horizon at 1735hrs in the second week in April in Lincolnshire, and even if clear vision was obscured there's an easy fix for detecting approaching 1000cc Ducatis: wind the window down and switch off the radio, which should be the expected behaviour from a competent driver, but probably isn't.

Your colleagues at Lincolnshire were sufficiently concerned about the verdict to publicly comment about the avoidable death.

http://www.mag-uk.org/en/newsdetail/a7011

Well yes, no error would have meant no collision, thus it's avoidable.
I'm sure they are sad, I too think it's sad & feel for the guys family (both family's have been through hell I suspect).
But that still doesn't mean he was guilty of careless.

I have no intention of persuading you of anything; again, it's bizarre that you should think that I am required to do so. Merely highlighting the obvious.

"No error = no collision" is important, as is the fact that the collision was avoidable. Perhaps the key factor is: would a competent driver have avoided the collision? There are unknowns, and who knows what went on as the jury made their decision.

[V8 Fettler]

vonhosen said:

V8 Fettler said:

Do you have no other response than "the jury must be right"?

That's not my response.

My response is as they've seen all the evidence & I haven't, I'm not in position to call their verdict as perverse without some good evidence being presented to suggest why it is so.
I'm afraid the fact that you (without even seeing the evidence) can't understand how they could acquit, doesn't satisfy my requirement for good evidence needed to call into question or dismiss their verdict as perverse.

You appear to rely heavily on the fact that the jury declared the driver not guilty and that the jury is correct. I don't have enough faith in the ability of the average jury to correctly judge the hazards/risks associated with a road traffic collision where there are complicating factors. And I certainly don't trust the average jury to recognise potential means to reduce the risks.

No jury sees all the evidence, primarily because the evidence can never be collected in its entirety, the investigation has to stop somewhere.

You seem to think that I have to "satisfy your requirement for good evidence". For clarity, this is not a court, you're not the judge/jury and I'm not one of your minions who might have to "satisfy your requirements".

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

v12Legs said:

There is no evidence that can possibly exist that can excuse a driver pulling out when it is not clear to do so.

That's easily defeated. Suppose the oncoming vehicle on the main road was doing 180mph.

Excess speed of a motorcycle that was struck by a car turning across the motorcyclist's path wasn't used as a defence by the car driver in this recent case.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a47_death_crash_driver...

Didn't even work as mitigation.

[V8 Fettler]

Jon1967x said:

v12Legs said:

Jon1967x said:

A better argument might be pulling out of a side road when the sun is low in the sky, the road is wet and its very difficult to see what might be approaching due to glare. The driver is compromised in their vision but what can they do? Sit there and wait for the sun to set?

Well that would be preferable to just pulling out and hoping there's nothing coming, which some people seem to think is entirely reasonable driving.

Do you actually have a driving licence? I'm not saying not looking, I'm saying that the clarity of what you can see is not great and you squint, hold your hand above your eyes, make out as best you can what you can see but far far from ideal.

Flat cap or baseball cap (depending on age)? Sunglasses?

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

singlecoil said:

v12Legs said:

There is no evidence that can possibly exist that can excuse a driver pulling out when it is not clear to do so.

That's easily defeated. Suppose the oncoming vehicle on the main road was doing 180mph.

Excess speed of a motorcycle that was struck by a car turning across the motorcyclist's path wasn't used as a defence by the car driver in this recent case.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a47_death_crash_driver...

Didn't even work as mitigation.

So what. That wasn't the case we are discussing.

[Jon1967x]

V8 Fettler said:

singlecoil said:

v12Legs said:

There is no evidence that can possibly exist that can excuse a driver pulling out when it is not clear to do so.

That's easily defeated. Suppose the oncoming vehicle on the main road was doing 180mph.

Excess speed of a motorcycle that was struck by a car turning across the motorcyclist's path wasn't used as a defence by the car driver in this recent case.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a47_death_crash_driver...

Didn't even work as mitigation.

It also says the car driver was not driving dangerously. He made a simple error of judgement in exactly the same way a friend of mine did a couple of years ago. Luckily for him it was a car driving at 40 and not a motorbike doing nearly 100 - the police weren't bothered because nobody was hurt. Same driver mistake - arguably spotting the car should have been easier - and possibly, if not probably, only the difference in outcome (ie the fatality) resulted in my friend having not even a due care and attention 3 points and the car driver being banned.

Is it what you do OR the consequences of what you do that should determine your punishment?

Edited by Jon1967x on Wednesday 21st January 16:16

[v12Legs]

V8 Fettler said:

Excess speed of a motorcycle that was struck by a car turning across the motorcyclist's path wasn't used as a defence by the car driver in this recent case.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a47_death_crash_driver...

Didn't even work as mitigation.

Thanks, that's the case I was thinking about earlier.

[vonhosen]

allergictocheese said:

There's reams of case law on the subject of liability for emerging vehicles. It can range from 100% one way to 100% the other, depending on the circumstances and behaviour of each driver. If it interests anyone, go spend a few hours on BAILII and look up some cases for reasoning. There's little anyone here is going to say to overturn the thinking of the courts built up over many years.

And what will shine through again & again is that each case must be dealt with on it's merits & that civil liability & criminal liability are different things.

[vonhosen]

V8 Fettler said:

vonhosen said:

V8 Fettler said:

Do you have no other response than "the jury must be right"?

That's not my response.

My response is as they've seen all the evidence & I haven't, I'm not in position to call their verdict as perverse without some good evidence being presented to suggest why it is so.
I'm afraid the fact that you (without even seeing the evidence) can't understand how they could acquit, doesn't satisfy my requirement for good evidence needed to call into question or dismiss their verdict as perverse.

You appear to rely heavily on the fact that the jury declared the driver not guilty and that the jury is correct. I don't have enough faith in the ability of the average jury to correctly judge the hazards/risks associated with a road traffic collision where there are complicating factors. And I certainly don't trust the average jury to recognise potential means to reduce the risks.

No jury sees all the evidence, primarily because the evidence can never be collected in its entirety, the investigation has to stop somewhere.

You seem to think that I have to "satisfy your requirement for good evidence". For clarity, this is not a court, you're not the judge/jury and I'm not one of your minions who might have to "satisfy your requirements".

They've seen more than you & I trust their judgement on this case more than yours given that there were twelve of them with all the admissible evidence available before them (with somebody legally trained advising them on the law) whilst there's one of you who hasn't been privy to as much evidence as they have, or the legal guidance of a judge.

No you don't 'have' to convince me of anything, but you are still failing miserably to anyway.

Not only do you not 'have' to convince me, but you don't 'have' to reply now either. I suspect though that you just won't be able to stop yourself & will repeat yet again that they're wrong, whilst still not providing any pertinent evidence to support why they would be.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st January 18:59

[vonhosen]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

singlecoil said:

v12Legs said:

There is no evidence that can possibly exist that can excuse a driver pulling out when it is not clear to do so.

That's easily defeated. Suppose the oncoming vehicle on the main road was doing 180mph.

Excess speed of a motorcycle that was struck by a car turning across the motorcyclist's path wasn't used as a defence by the car driver in this recent case.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a47_death_crash_driver...

Didn't even work as mitigation.

So what. That wasn't the case we are discussing.

A good fail.
Referring to different case that will have different circumstances & not even close to the circumstances just said by singlecoil either.