Discussion
Heading west on the M4 last Thurs. approx. 6.00p.m, the traffic wasn't very heavy for the time of day & was flowing well. Outside lane speed was approx. 80-85 mph, middle lane speed was approx. 70-75 mph. Lane discipline was surprisingly good, as was the generally standard of driving. The light was excellent and it was dry. All was well & I was cruising comfortably at approx. 75 mph in the middle lane (had been using n/side lane when possible). Just around a slight bend was a Camera Van on a bridge, panic braking in the middle & outside lanes resulted in my speed dropping to 50mph. Fortunately, everyone had left enough braking distance between vehicles.
So as a result of the "Safety" Camera Van, a close to perfect motorway scenario could easily have changed into an accident scene
I know that this has regulary been commented on, but I'm surprised that the Police patrols haven't witnessed this & protested.
Maybe it will take a few multiple crashes to make these idiots see the error of their ways, but what a waste of lives!
So as a result of the "Safety" Camera Van, a close to perfect motorway scenario could easily have changed into an accident scene
I know that this has regulary been commented on, but I'm surprised that the Police patrols haven't witnessed this & protested.
Maybe it will take a few multiple crashes to make these idiots see the error of their ways, but what a waste of lives!
The presence of the cameras operated by the 'Wiltshire Safety Camera Partnership' was well publicised and there are signs between J18 and J14 warning of the presence of cameras. I drive this stretch every couple of weeks and am amazed at how many people go past me at speeds that are going to get them nicked.
I am no angel when it comes to speed limits but when the signs warn that there might be a camera I am cautious.
The M4 cameras trigger at 79 mph (limit x 10% + 2mph) so 75mph actual should be OK.
I am no angel when it comes to speed limits but when the signs warn that there might be a camera I am cautious.
The M4 cameras trigger at 79 mph (limit x 10% + 2mph) so 75mph actual should be OK.
That's why I was doing 75mph, so I'm not concerned about being caught, although I imagine vehicles in the outside lane may well have been. The point was that IMO the M4 was flowing in an almost ideal way. Even if the fastest vehicles hadn't been exceeding 70mph, I believe the panic braking would still have happened. It did in the middle lane where I was positioned & no one was doing more than my approx. 75mph, yet I still had to brake sharply down to 50mph!
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
A57 HSV said:
That's why I was doing 75mph, so I'm not concerned about being caught, although I imagine vehicles in the outside lane may well have been. The point was that IMO the M4 was flowing in an almost ideal way. Even if the fastest vehicles hadn't been exceeding 70mph, I believe the panic braking would still have happened. It did in the middle lane where I was positioned & no one was doing more than my approx. 75mph, yet I still had to brake sharply down to 50mph!
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
Well if we have to have them sounds best to hide them then & just put up signage warning that they are there somewhere but not visible.
vonhosen said:Better still not to have to have them
That's why I was doing 75mph, so I'm not concerned about being caught, although I imagine vehicles in the outside lane may well have been. The point was that IMO the M4 was flowing in an almost ideal way. Even if the fastest vehicles hadn't been exceeding 70mph, I believe the panic braking would still have happened. It did in the middle lane where I was positioned & no one was doing more than my approx. 75mph, yet I still had to brake sharply down to 50mph!
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
Well if we have to have them sounds best to hide them then & just put up signage warning that they are there somewhere but not visible.
Like all forms of automated photoradar styleee enforcement they have been shown
a) to have no safety benefit but criminalise safe driving
b) to be an arbitrary and heavy handed system
c) to harm witness cooperation, police recruitment, and BiB-MoP relations
d) to require a well funded spin machine to sustain existence
We should get rid - and good riddance.
vonhosen said:
That's why I was doing 75mph, so I'm not concerned about being caught, although I imagine vehicles in the outside lane may well have been. The point was that IMO the M4 was flowing in an almost ideal way. Even if the fastest vehicles hadn't been exceeding 70mph, I believe the panic braking would still have happened. It did in the middle lane where I was positioned & no one was doing more than my approx. 75mph, yet I still had to brake sharply down to 50mph!
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
Well if we have to have them sounds best to hide them then & just put up signage warning that they are there somewhere but not visible.
You were just waiting for the scenario to occur where you could say that weren't you.
No doubt, you'd like us all to be even more paranoid about our speed because we don't know where the cameras are, looking at the speedo even more often than now, thus making roads even less safe. ...more revenue for the camera businesses though...
530dTPhil said:
The presence of the cameras operated by the 'Wiltshire Safety Camera Partnership' was well publicised and there are signs between J18 and J14 warning of the presence of cameras. I drive this stretch every couple of weeks and am amazed at how many people go past me at speeds that are going to get them nicked.
I am no angel when it comes to speed limits but when the signs warn that there might be a camera I am cautious.
The M4 cameras trigger at 79 mph (limit x 10% + 2mph) so 75mph actual should be OK.
I drive this stretch three or four times a week. I know their favourite places – Sutton Benger and Grittenham bridges are the usual ones. I make sure that I am within NSL+10%+2 where I am expecting them to be. I am finding that many other drivers adopt the same tactics.
To the regular drivers on this stretch, it has become a bit of a game of “cat-and-mouse.”
vonhosen said:
[quote=A57 HSV]Well if we have to have them sounds best to hide them then & just put up signage warning that they are there somewhere but not visible.
No, the best option would be to remove them altogether from the M4. That particular motorway has some of the best statistics for safe driving (per mile per driver) in the country.
Unfortunately, it's Wiltshire we're talking about here. They have a habit of cocking up speed enforcement and then go about trying to claw back their losses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wi
Since the M4 is a fast flowing motorway, it makes relatively easy pickings for the Dick Turpin-like operators of Wiltshire's finest.
And they have the cheek to claim credit for the decrease in accidents. Such manipulation of the figures makes me want to a) cry, and/or b) throw up.
Spot on DeMolay. They’ve got 5,600 fines to give back, and are looking for a way to make £336,000
The beauty of motorway scamming for the pratnerships is enhanced by the fact that the folk who are highway robbed are unlikely to live locally and write to the local press or the local MP, and being from all corners of the earth their protests are effectively diluted. This was why many of the hypothecation trial areas moved from local roads to bridges on trunk roads and motorways when their well-funded spin machines started to stall against the weight of local opposition. Answer - ticket everybody BUT locals.
Kerching.
As for the Wilts scammers, after they claimed to have NO stats for the section of M4 they were scamming, we had to pay them over a hundred quid (£111-63 to be precise) to get the M4 accident stats for 2001-04 inclusive for M4 junctions 14-18 that they said they didn't have
only to find that a motorway bridge suicide jumper was part of the 'justification' for scamming the M4 well it WAS a death on the roads 
This is how sure they are that sufficient of the accidents they studied to justify the scamvans were caused by speeding
Well there was this 'speed kills' common occurrence that will be prevented by scamvans quite easily click not
When scammers are eyeing up a flowing and safe stretch of the country's safest roads, they need ammunition...and when it's not there...you have to have the folly of a walking bottom to do what they did
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 23 April 17:44
The beauty of motorway scamming for the pratnerships is enhanced by the fact that the folk who are highway robbed are unlikely to live locally and write to the local press or the local MP, and being from all corners of the earth their protests are effectively diluted. This was why many of the hypothecation trial areas moved from local roads to bridges on trunk roads and motorways when their well-funded spin machines started to stall against the weight of local opposition. Answer - ticket everybody BUT locals.
Kerching.
As for the Wilts scammers, after they claimed to have NO stats for the section of M4 they were scamming, we had to pay them over a hundred quid (£111-63 to be precise) to get the M4 accident stats for 2001-04 inclusive for M4 junctions 14-18 that they said they didn't have
only to find that a motorway bridge suicide jumper was part of the 'justification' for scamming the M4 well it WAS a death on the roads This is how sure they are that sufficient of the accidents they studied to justify the scamvans were caused by speeding
Wilts scammer email said:So it's as clear as mud then.
The reviewing panel were of the opinion that, after studying the reports, together with the locations of the remaining collisions and there being no other evidence of, or suggestion by the motorist of a causation such as fatigue, illness, vehicle or road defect, adverse road, visibility or weather conditions etc reported, the most likely cause of these 51 collisions was either excess or inappropriate speed
Well there was this 'speed kills' common occurrence that will be prevented by scamvans quite easily click not
When scammers are eyeing up a flowing and safe stretch of the country's safest roads, they need ammunition...and when it's not there...you have to have the folly of a walking bottom to do what they did
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 23 April 17:44
vonhosen said:
That's why I was doing 75mph, so I'm not concerned about being caught, although I imagine vehicles in the outside lane may well have been. The point was that IMO the M4 was flowing in an almost ideal way. Even if the fastest vehicles hadn't been exceeding 70mph, I believe the panic braking would still have happened. It did in the middle lane where I was positioned & no one was doing more than my approx. 75mph, yet I still had to brake sharply down to 50mph!
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
Well if we have to have them sounds best to hide them then & just put up signage warning that they are there somewhere but not visible.
Vonhosen. you are missing my point. Even if no vehicle was exceeding 70 mph,drivers will still panic brake when suddenly spotting a camera van. IMO this is dangerous & as such camera vans can cause danger.
A57 HSV said:
That's why I was doing 75mph, so I'm not concerned about being caught, although I imagine vehicles in the outside lane may well have been. The point was that IMO the M4 was flowing in an almost ideal way. Even if the fastest vehicles hadn't been exceeding 70mph, I believe the panic braking would still have happened. It did in the middle lane where I was positioned & no one was doing more than my approx. 75mph, yet I still had to brake sharply down to 50mph!
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
Well if we have to have them sounds best to hide them then & just put up signage warning that they are there somewhere but not visible.
Vonhosen. you are missing my point. Even if no vehicle was exceeding 70 mph,drivers will still panic brake when suddenly spotting a camera van. IMO this is dangerous & as such camera vans can cause danger.
Mate, the point has been done to death and VH will not accept it. I've seen it happen many a time and I've seen it cause accidents, but what do we know
apache said:
That's why I was doing 75mph, so I'm not concerned about being caught, although I imagine vehicles in the outside lane may well have been. The point was that IMO the M4 was flowing in an almost ideal way. Even if the fastest vehicles hadn't been exceeding 70mph, I believe the panic braking would still have happened. It did in the middle lane where I was positioned & no one was doing more than my approx. 75mph, yet I still had to brake sharply down to 50mph!
The same scenario happens with cameras, drivers often just brake anyway. How many times have you been in a queue of cars passing a camera at least 20% below the posted limit?
It's a natural (albeit wrong) reaction & IMO increases the chances of an accident.
Well if we have to have them sounds best to hide them then & just put up signage warning that they are there somewhere but not visible.
Vonhosen. you are missing my point. Even if no vehicle was exceeding 70 mph,drivers will still panic brake when suddenly spotting a camera van. IMO this is dangerous & as such camera vans can cause danger.
Mate, the point has been done to death and VH will not accept it. I've seen it happen many a time and I've seen it cause accidents, but what do we know
And I've said if it's a problem that drivers are doing that & the camera is needed there, the simple answer is hide the cameras & put up signs warning they are not visible. They won't be suddenly braking for cameras that they can't see will they ?
(Above or below the limit)
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 25th April 18:57
vonhosen said:Chief Constable Paul Garvin couldn't find a single location where a speed camera would be appropriate, across his reasonably large (land) area of responsibility. He said that the speed camera debate isn't a matter of principle it is a fact that they are pointless.
if...the camera is needed there
No camera is needed anywhere.
vonhosen said:
And I've said if it's a problem that drivers are doing that & the camera is needed there, the simple answer is hide the cameras & put up signs warning they are not visible. They won't be suddenly braking for cameras that they can't see will they ?
(Above or below the limit)
I think you are saying that if drivers brake for a camera then the camera is needed at that spot?
VH you have posted a massive amount on the subject in a very short time and you have proven to know your stuff, which I respect you for but if that is truly what you mean then you are crazy.
We both know why they won't hide cameras completely as it would decimate the driving population and increase illegal drivers
apache said:
And I've said if it's a problem that drivers are doing that & the camera is needed there, the simple answer is hide the cameras & put up signs warning they are not visible. They won't be suddenly braking for cameras that they can't see will they ?
(Above or below the limit)
I think you are saying that if drivers brake for a camera then the camera is needed at that spot?
VH you have posted a massive amount on the subject in a very short time and you have proven to know your stuff, which I respect you for but if that is truly what you mean then you are crazy.
We both know why they won't hide cameras completely as it would decimate the driving population and increase illegal drivers
That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is, if the camera is justified at that location, but drivers keep acting irresponsibly on seeing it, then hide it.
I've said before that I am only for cameras at identified speed problem areas, if drivers continue to speed there & compound the problem by maintaining speed & then employing stupid braking antics on seeing them, hiding means they won't be braking because they won't be seeing them.
That doesn't mean I want to see hidden cameras on all our roads, just alievate stupid behaviour at the needed locations.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 25th April 20:05
turbobloke said:
if...the camera is needed there
No camera is needed anywhere.
And how many Chief Constables have an opposing view for their areas of responsibility ?
vonhosen said:And how many CCs want to further their careers by sucking up to their political masters?
if...the camera is needed there
No camera is needed anywhere.
And how many Chief Constables have an opposing view for their areas of responsibility ?
I do not believe that the action of "panic" braking is anything other than a natural reaction for many drivers. Unless you drive on the motorway constantly checking your speedo every few seconds, which would IMO be dangerous, you may not always be aware of your exact speed even though you maybe driving appropriately for the conditions etc.etc. As such, you could be driving in a safe manner & as you see the camera van brake just a little too hard, as you aware that you could be slightly exceeding the speed limit.
With improving braking systems on new cars, which is one of the reasons why accident stats. are down, it is all too easy to reduce your speed considerably, which on a motorway can have dangerous consequences.
I wouldn't call this irresponsible behaviour, just human nature.
Still as it's been said already you either understand this or you don't, the argument could go on forever. I just hope that it does not take the loss of life for the govt. to realise that allowing camera vans on motorways is not the answer to improving motorway safety!
With improving braking systems on new cars, which is one of the reasons why accident stats. are down, it is all too easy to reduce your speed considerably, which on a motorway can have dangerous consequences.
I wouldn't call this irresponsible behaviour, just human nature.
Still as it's been said already you either understand this or you don't, the argument could go on forever. I just hope that it does not take the loss of life for the govt. to realise that allowing camera vans on motorways is not the answer to improving motorway safety!
A57 HSV said:
I do not believe that the action of "panic" braking is anything other than a natural reaction for many drivers. Unless you drive on the motorway constantly checking your speedo every few seconds, which would IMO be dangerous, you may not always be aware of your exact speed even though you maybe driving appropriately for the conditions etc.etc. As such, you could be driving in a safe manner & as you see the camera van brake just a little too hard, as you aware that you could be slightly exceeding the speed limit.
With improving braking systems on new cars, which is one of the reasons why accident stats. are down, it is all too easy to reduce your speed considerably, which on a motorway can have dangerous consequences.
I wouldn't call this irresponsible behaviour, just human nature.
Still as it's been said already you either understand this or you don't, the argument could go on forever. I just hope that it does not take the loss of life for the govt. to realise that allowing camera vans on motorways is not the answer to improving motorway safety!
Not everybody does it though & some even including in their driving plans that those with poor observation will brake late.
Like I say though, if the cameras needed & it's presence is causing this silly behaviour, hide it & the behaviour will cease.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff