M4 closed after collision at speed camera van site
Discussion
When I was asking the Norfolk bozos about why they feel the need to collect from a new bit of the A11 near Snetterton, their cheif bozo cited an accident which they filmed at (IIRC) 82mph.
As far as I understand it Mr White Van Man had been wafting harmlessly along at 82mph when he spotted the van so braked hard and lost control, careering into the central reservation.
The facts that:
a)he could have done the same rubbish bit of driving at 70, 60 or 50mph;
b)his vehicle might have been defective;
c)he wouldn't have necessarily needed to panic brake on his journey if the van wasn't there.
seemed to escape him.
In a reply I asked if, in his opinion, the presence of his van made the accident more or less likely to happen. No reply forthcoming still.
Actually it was at this point (him citing this RTA in defence of his business) that I realised the head of the Norfolk Safety Camera partnership knew as much about road safety as my 1 year old daughter knows about nuclear fusion.
Ticks me off a bit actually because the local media keeps asking his opinion about this stuff, as if he knows the first thing about it!
SM
As far as I understand it Mr White Van Man had been wafting harmlessly along at 82mph when he spotted the van so braked hard and lost control, careering into the central reservation.
The facts that:
a)he could have done the same rubbish bit of driving at 70, 60 or 50mph;
b)his vehicle might have been defective;
c)he wouldn't have necessarily needed to panic brake on his journey if the van wasn't there.
seemed to escape him.
In a reply I asked if, in his opinion, the presence of his van made the accident more or less likely to happen. No reply forthcoming still.
Actually it was at this point (him citing this RTA in defence of his business) that I realised the head of the Norfolk Safety Camera partnership knew as much about road safety as my 1 year old daughter knows about nuclear fusion.
Ticks me off a bit actually because the local media keeps asking his opinion about this stuff, as if he knows the first thing about it!
SM
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?
I was 'assuming' that the Scamera van wasnt there. Dont get me wrong.......i dont like them much but there is a time and a place - sadly.
Tonyrec said:Yes, detecting trivial overspeeds is so very important that it doesn't matter if a few fools crash into each other in their attempts to avoid enforcement of a completely arbitrary limit.
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?
I was 'assuming' that the Scamera van wasnt there. Dont get me wrong.......i dont like them much but there is a time and a place - sadly.
Einion Yrth 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?
I was 'assuming' that the Scamera van wasnt there. Dont get me wrong.......i dont like them much but there is a time and a place - sadly.
Who said anything about trivial overspeeds????
Have you seen some of the speeds detected???
Ive been parked in a layby, in a marked Trafpol car and directly behind a Scamera van and people were getting pinged every 15 seconds and to cap it all, the threshold was 15mph over the limit on a 40mph road.....beggers belief that people can and will do this in these situations.
For the record, on the A40 in London for example and in the 40 limit, we dont have to wait long to get the 70 to 80 brigade. These are the speeds that im interested in.
But also, speeding is secondary to the bad drivers, uninsured/unlicensed drivers brigade who see to be forming an army on the roads today.
Tonyrec said:
Ive been parked in a layby, in a marked Trafpol car and directly behind a Scamera van and people were getting pinged every 15 seconds and to cap it all, the threshold was 15mph over the limit on a 40mph road.....beggers belief that people can and will do this in these situations.
For the record, on the A40 in London for example and in the 40 limit, we dont have to wait long to get the 70 to 80 brigade. These are the speeds that im interested in.
Er, this thread was about motorway scameras. Inappropriate speed in appropriate limits you can enforce to your hearts content - although I fail to see how receiving a NIP a fortnight later is going to prevent the inappropriate and dangerous speed at the time.
Tonyrec said:
But also, speeding is secondary to the bad drivers, uninsured/unlicensed drivers brigade who see to be forming an army on the roads today.
And which scameras don't catch AFAICT.
Einion Yrth said:
Ive been parked in a layby, in a marked Trafpol car and directly behind a Scamera van and people were getting pinged every 15 seconds and to cap it all, the threshold was 15mph over the limit on a 40mph road.....beggers belief that people can and will do this in these situations.
For the record, on the A40 in London for example and in the 40 limit, we dont have to wait long to get the 70 to 80 brigade. These are the speeds that im interested in.
Er, this thread was about motorway scameras. Inappropriate speed in appropriate limits you can enforce to your hearts content - although I fail to see how receiving a NIP a fortnight later is going to prevent the inappropriate and dangerous speed at the time.Tonyrec said:
But also, speeding is secondary to the bad drivers, uninsured/unlicensed drivers brigade who see to be forming an army on the roads today.
And which scameras don't catch AFAICT.
Ross, you seem to be going around in circles.
Im giving you examples of why accidents at camers spots are the fault of numpty drivers and nothing else.
I dont like scameras, i want more Police on the roads detecting bad driving offences, document offences etc BUT i will report as many of these idiot drivers who crash at these sites for the appropriate offences all day long and i certainly wont lose any sleep over it at all.
It does not change my mind though that most Scameras are revenue collectors and a waste of time.
Tonyrec said:
Ross, you seem to be going around in circles.
No, my argument is linear, but I don't think it's with you.
Tonyrec said:
Im giving you examples of why accidents at camers spots are the fault of numpty drivers and nothing else.
Yes they are the fault of the morons and the clueless, but their idiot response to the unhelpful presence of scameras is making matters worse.
Tonyrec said:
I dont like scameras, i want more Police on the roads detecting bad driving offences, document offences etc
We are in agreement here then.
Tonyrec said:
BUT i will report as many of these idiot drivers who crash at these sites for the appropriate offences all day long and i certainly wont lose any sleep over it at all.
Good. Stop them at the side of the road, point out the error of their ways, and if their behaviour warrants it, report them for consideration of prosecution. They might learn something; all they will learn from a NIP landing on their doormat is 'all coppaz is bastidz, innit'
Tonyrec said:
It does not change my mind though that most Scameras are revenue collectors and a waste of time.
The only place we disagree here is that I believe that the best a scamera can be is a waste of time, and that at worst they are actively deleterious to road safety.
BliarOut said:
For the record, on the A40 in London for example and in the 40 limit, we dont have to wait long to get the 70 to 80 brigade. These are the speeds that im interested in.
No, its the bit adjacent to the old 'Hoover building' Westbound.
Believe it or not, but its by far the most dangerous road that i Police. By this,im not going by anyones statistics but merely how many times i have to get a Collision report book out of my pocket.
What we call the Northolt straight (alongside RAF Northolt) is subject to a 70 limit and it is as straight as an arrow but we regularly get fatal crashes there. Hopefully though, they it wont be a future spot for a Camera.
The main problem with this road is that it carrie a large volume of traffic, most of which is going to work or coming back from work. As a result it speeds up and slows down without warning and of course, theres no same place to pull over if you get into difficulty with your car or are unfortunate enough to have a small knock. I refrained from saying hard shoulder because they are safre in the main, but can be deadly at any time.
I know the section Tony. I would say that a warning sign along the lines of "Warning, traffic liable to sudden stops" would do far more to contribute to road safety than any amount of cameras. Alert the unfamiliar driver to the hazards of the particular road and they are more likely to drive appropriately.
rs1952 said:
Sadly, this just adds weight to the debate that they should be there.
I'm afraid I don't agree
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
How is someone driving to fast the fault of the police camera?
I agree with the ealier coment, a Camera is obviously needed there.
I have also used that stretch of the M4 loads and have never seen a camera van, oh and it has flowed much better since they anounced they were putting vans on bridges
BliarOut said:
I know the section Tony. I would say that a warning sign along the lines of "Warning, traffic liable to sudden stops" would do far more to contribute to road safety than any amount of cameras. Alert the unfamiliar driver to the hazards of the particular road and they are more likely to drive appropriately.
I like your thinking but i honestly dont think it would work. It might make people think for a few days, but the real idiots i think cant even read!
Forgot to add, the majority of drivers use this road day in day out. It still surprises me that some manage to have spectacular crashes when they know every twist and turn though.
>> Edited by Tonyrec on Friday 3rd March 10:40
combemarshal said:
How is someone driving to fast the fault of the police camera?
I agree with the ealier coment, a Camera is obviously needed there.
I have also used that stretch of the M4 loads and have never seen a camera van, oh and it has flowed much better since they anounced they were putting vans on bridges
Can you honestly say that you have never followed someone at 60 who suddenly brakes to 50 on seeing a camera? it happens so often I expect it!
combemarshal said:
But thats not the fault of the camera, it's the faulty nut holding the steering wheel of the car!
I don't see your point CM, the nut behind the wheel is driving badly at or under the limit as well as above it, people are being killed at the rate of 3500 (approx) annually, a rate which was in decline till the introduction of cameras caused it to level off.
Would you say that it would be better to have a patrol car or a camera to encourage him to drive better? would you agree that there might possibly be more ways to prevent him driving badly than decreasing plod numbers and increasing camera sites?
combemarshal said:But surely the point is that if the idiots' reaction to seeing a scamera is causing accidents then we'd be better off without the damn thing. By all means get these fools off the road, but don't risk the lives of innocents by giving the tossers any further excuse to balls it up.
But thats not the fault of the camera, it's the faulty nut holding the steering wheel of the car!
How many people can honestly say they never exceed the motorway speed limit?
An observant safe driver will spot the camera van, and knowing doing above speed limit will (for his own survival and 3pt avoidance), hit the anchors.
How many people, whilst doing 85-90mph with someone close behind them (closer than say 2 seconds), would avoid braking heavily upon seeing a suspicious looking van on bridge?
The question in essence is do you avoid 3 points or avoid an accident?
An observant safe driver will spot the camera van, and knowing doing above speed limit will (for his own survival and 3pt avoidance), hit the anchors.
How many people, whilst doing 85-90mph with someone close behind them (closer than say 2 seconds), would avoid braking heavily upon seeing a suspicious looking van on bridge?
The question in essence is do you avoid 3 points or avoid an accident?
See my post on a similar thread:-
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=248693&p=3
At the end of the day, if you're speeding and someone is tailgating you, that's a dangerous situation to be in - either slow down (to give yourself more time and space to react) and/or let them past - their accident, don't make it yours.
In both instances you're safe - if you slow and there's a camera, you're safe. If you let them past and there's a camera, they'll nail their brakes first and give you warning.
Simple really.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=248693&p=3
At the end of the day, if you're speeding and someone is tailgating you, that's a dangerous situation to be in - either slow down (to give yourself more time and space to react) and/or let them past - their accident, don't make it yours.
In both instances you're safe - if you slow and there's a camera, you're safe. If you let them past and there's a camera, they'll nail their brakes first and give you warning.
Simple really.
Just a quick comment - having been caught in this yesterday, I must say that the M4 is a bit of a nightmare at the moment. From the Bath to Hungerford to Newbury section the sun rises up BANG OVER THE carriageway on the eastbound direction. Bloody nightmare it is too.
Ok, sun visor and sun glasses work, but it does kind of yellow-out the road and makes it dangerous. It might have been that and to be honest, a 70MPH talivan would have made ZERO difference here - because 50MPH would have been too much to react to a changing situation!
Is the road safe? Yes, but talivans are yet again NOT the answer....
Ok, sun visor and sun glasses work, but it does kind of yellow-out the road and makes it dangerous. It might have been that and to be honest, a 70MPH talivan would have made ZERO difference here - because 50MPH would have been too much to react to a changing situation!
Is the road safe? Yes, but talivans are yet again NOT the answer....
combemarshal said:
Sadly, this just adds weight to the debate that they should be there.
I'm afraid I don't agree
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
How is someone driving to fast the fault of the police camera?
I agree with the ealier coment, a Camera is obviously needed there.
I have also used that stretch of the M4 loads and have never seen a camera van, oh and it has flowed much better since they anounced they were putting vans on bridges
A bit of misprepresentation here that needs putting right:-
I was not suggesting that it is the fault of a scamera if somebody drives too fast - as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread (and is well-known anyway snd may be supported by the BIB on here) the appearance of a camera van regularly causes panic braking - whether the driver is actually speeding or not
And, from my experience of driving on the M4 since cameras were introduced, I find that the Wiltshire section has become much more dangerous and frustrating - virtually every day I see tailgating in the outside lane caused by idiots doing 65mph, and underaking because those idiots are blocking the free flow of traffic.
Passing Membury is like a breath of fresh air, when traffic gets back to behaving normally.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff