RTA's at Camera sites - whos to blame?
Discussion
I haven't got time to be drawn into the debate, I agree that there are people out on the roads who are an accident waiting to happen, and sometimes (perhaps) panic braking for cameras (and vans) cause these accidents to happen sooner rather than later.
Saying that i've been in the inside lane of an empty motorway and spotted a HALO Landrover parked up in the Police only slip roads and that caused me to brake first, check my mirrors second.
Certain individuals lack of driving skills (and lack of mirror use) on motorways/dual carriageways are causing others to get frustrated so they then try to bully the other driver out of the way.
This may be of interest to some of you - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/do
Unfortuantly a cyclist was killed in Bournemouth on Tuesday not far from the university. The stretch of road he was on is a straight peice of road between two roundabouts and is lined with trees. There is a speed camera on this section which OBVIOUSLY could do nothing to prevent the accident but I bet it will be used in their justification for the camera.
Regards,
Phill
Saying that i've been in the inside lane of an empty motorway and spotted a HALO Landrover parked up in the Police only slip roads and that caused me to brake first, check my mirrors second.
Certain individuals lack of driving skills (and lack of mirror use) on motorways/dual carriageways are causing others to get frustrated so they then try to bully the other driver out of the way.
This may be of interest to some of you - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/do
Unfortuantly a cyclist was killed in Bournemouth on Tuesday not far from the university. The stretch of road he was on is a straight peice of road between two roundabouts and is lined with trees. There is a speed camera on this section which OBVIOUSLY could do nothing to prevent the accident but I bet it will be used in their justification for the camera.
Regards,
Phill
deltafox said:
Now, good policy would be to do what exactly?
Leave it in place to allow it to "scare" people into compliance with a law, even though they keep crashing at the site due to the effects already mentioned?
Or remove it?
Sadly if Scamera-panic-braking-crashes become more commonplace the conclusion that the Gov't will probably draw will be to leave the Scameras there, but hide them so that people don't see it and 'react' such is their understanding of road safety and desire for control & revenue
>> Edited by catso on Friday 3rd March 11:38
Chris D said:
Phil,
As a matter of interest - I know it's a bit off the subject - but why did you brake when you saw the HATO vehicle?!
No problem, I spotted in from a long way away but could only make out the battenburg effect on the side of it (it was a Range Rover IIRC), better safe than sorry tbh. I was probably doing a steady 85 so came down to 70.
It was a long time ago but I wouldn't have slammed the anchors on, it would have been spot the "suspect vehicle"
, come off the loud pedal, then decide to slow down to what in law is considered to be a safe speed with a quick dab of the brakes. There was no danger to any one else as there is no one on the road, but as more people seem to like to tailgate these days I wouldn't bother braking, safer to risk the points then risk causing an accident and having all the paper work to deal with.
Just a general question, who studies every roadside vehicle these days? I spend more of my time observing who's watching me than is wise, but if I'm to retain my licence then it's a necessary evil.
What's that suspicious looking vehicle on the flyover? *crash*
It's not imaginery, it's just what is happening out in the real world.
Two words, cause and effect.
What's that suspicious looking vehicle on the flyover? *crash* It's not imaginery, it's just what is happening out in the real world.
Two words, cause and effect.
The only answer is to improve driver standards, nearly everyday I would say that I encounter at least one person who clearly has not got the skills to be behind the wheel of a tonne+ piece of metal. Yet what do we do about it? Put up speed traps that penalise drivers who may well be capable of travelling at that speed. Whilst driving in Germany last year the driving standards were quite clearly far better than I've experienced in this country, this was evident after 10 minutes of driving! (all imo of course).
So what do we do in this country? Put up a few speed cameras and try and slow people down to a speed where it is likely to safer(less deadly) to hit a numpty driver that pulls out infront of you without using their mirrors. So we're changing our habits to take into account the abilities of the worst drivers rather than trying to make everyone more competant. Quite clearly the government is not tackling the real problem but then again the police don't help either, still focusing on speed rather than educating people on the effects of their poor road discipline. I don't doubt that speed cameras can be helpful in the correct location but I would imagine their effectiveness is limited and doesn't resolve the real issues.
So what do we do in this country? Put up a few speed cameras and try and slow people down to a speed where it is likely to safer(less deadly) to hit a numpty driver that pulls out infront of you without using their mirrors. So we're changing our habits to take into account the abilities of the worst drivers rather than trying to make everyone more competant. Quite clearly the government is not tackling the real problem but then again the police don't help either, still focusing on speed rather than educating people on the effects of their poor road discipline. I don't doubt that speed cameras can be helpful in the correct location but I would imagine their effectiveness is limited and doesn't resolve the real issues.
BliarOut said:
Just a general question, who studies every roadside vehicle these days? I spend more of my time observing who's watching me than is wise, but if I'm to retain my licence then it's a necessary evil.
It's not imaginery, it's just what is happening out in the real world.
Two words, cause and effect.
I'm the same. Try to ignore the speedo as much as possible.
I think I agree with just about everything that has already been said.
Speed Cameras, especially mobile ones, make the people with poor driving and observation skills, far more dangerous to themselves and other moterists, as they pass where they are parked. Now the distinction between who would be to blame, i.e. the poor driver, or the camera that increased their poor driving, I think we can easily see that BOTH are to blame at some level. If we equated this to some sort of industry, where the employee was not very good at something, and the employer did something that caused what he was doing to be dangerous because of that, then we would blame the employer. (Now I am crap at examples, but you can see the links)
Now the other argument that the whole policy of trying to make our roads safer, which is mostly based around these partnerships, has contributed to the poor level of driving, I think we can also say that this is true. Maybe not to a massive effect, but at least on some level.
Now should we be blaming the partnerships for the numpties having accidents, when we aggree that they indirectly sometimes have CAUSED the accident? Surely they have some responsibility? If not legaly the definately morally!
Speed Cameras, especially mobile ones, make the people with poor driving and observation skills, far more dangerous to themselves and other moterists, as they pass where they are parked. Now the distinction between who would be to blame, i.e. the poor driver, or the camera that increased their poor driving, I think we can easily see that BOTH are to blame at some level. If we equated this to some sort of industry, where the employee was not very good at something, and the employer did something that caused what he was doing to be dangerous because of that, then we would blame the employer. (Now I am crap at examples, but you can see the links)
Now the other argument that the whole policy of trying to make our roads safer, which is mostly based around these partnerships, has contributed to the poor level of driving, I think we can also say that this is true. Maybe not to a massive effect, but at least on some level.
Now should we be blaming the partnerships for the numpties having accidents, when we aggree that they indirectly sometimes have CAUSED the accident? Surely they have some responsibility? If not legaly the definately morally!
If you drive into the back of the vehicle in front then it's YOUR FAULT. This applies irrespective of the reason for the vehicle in front slowing/braking.
Much as I despise the entire speed/cash-camera scheme, if one idiot (no.1) brakes hard because he sees a camera and another idiot (no. 2) is so close behind that he has no way of avoiding crashing into the back of the car in front, then it's idiot no. 2 who is entirely to blame. The camera is incidental and safe drivers know that there are such things as speed cameras and drive accordingly, perhaps leaving a bigger gap 'just in case'.
Much as I despise the entire speed/cash-camera scheme, if one idiot (no.1) brakes hard because he sees a camera and another idiot (no. 2) is so close behind that he has no way of avoiding crashing into the back of the car in front, then it's idiot no. 2 who is entirely to blame. The camera is incidental and safe drivers know that there are such things as speed cameras and drive accordingly, perhaps leaving a bigger gap 'just in case'.
Cooperman said:You know I don't believe a single poster has disagreed with any of that. Perhaps you should reread the thread to see what has been said.
If you drive into the back of the vehicle in front then it's YOUR FAULT. This applies irrespective of the reason for the vehicle in front slowing/braking.
Much as I despise the entire speed/cash-camera scheme, if one idiot (no.1) brakes hard because he sees a camera and another idiot (no. 2) is so close behind that he has no way of avoiding crashing into the back of the car in front, then it's idiot no. 2 who is entirely to blame. The camera is incidental and safe drivers know that there are such things as speed cameras and drive accordingly, perhaps leaving a bigger gap 'just in case'.
apache said:
Would it not be refreshing to hear all the above coming from the mouth of a Transport Minister? we are not experts, we haven't taken a degree in traffic management yet we seem able to put onto words what those in power cannot. This alone should indicate where the problem really lies
Yes it would but how likely is that? Not very. The cynic in me says that the emphasis is on getting more cash for the government. Get as many drivers on the road and the income increases through tax on fuel and these days speeding fines along with other taxes of course. Perhaps if they adopted the attitude that driving is a privilege and not a right then they might start making some progress in road safety. They don't seem able to grasp the concept that there's more to driving than simply sticking to a limit. I assume that ministers get their advice from independant experts but then again perhaps they consult the partners in scam.
JoolzB said:I think that is where the real failure lies. If the increased taxes were pumped back into road safety - increased level of proper traffic policing and driver education/re-education - then it would be much more palatable to those of us who actually take responsibility and an interest in the quality of our driving.
The cynic in me says that the emphasis is on getting more cash for the government. Get as many drivers on the road and the income increases through tax on fuel and these days speeding fines along with other taxes of course. Perhaps if they adopted the attitude that driving is a privilege and not a right then they might start making some progress in road safety.
[/back to real world with a jolt]
Great OP, Tony. About time it was said.
Unclear to me that collision by running into the back of a sharply braking vehicle is dangerous rather than careless, but one for the mags to decide.
If you are really on the ball and a good driver, you will see the camera well before most motorists, and recognise that they are about to start heavy braking so you'll have already eased off to below the limit and created space in front and controlled the driver behind.
Similarly when going over lines painted on the road -- when the camera is pointing in the other direction -- you should allow for the fact that many drivers will brake for he lines and position yourself accordingly.
It takes two drivers acting like muppets to cause one of these accidents. Blame the camera? Hardly.
Unclear to me that collision by running into the back of a sharply braking vehicle is dangerous rather than careless, but one for the mags to decide.
If you are really on the ball and a good driver, you will see the camera well before most motorists, and recognise that they are about to start heavy braking so you'll have already eased off to below the limit and created space in front and controlled the driver behind.
Similarly when going over lines painted on the road -- when the camera is pointing in the other direction -- you should allow for the fact that many drivers will brake for he lines and position yourself accordingly.
It takes two drivers acting like muppets to cause one of these accidents. Blame the camera? Hardly.
If you brake hard with someone close behind you, then you are not paying enough attention.
If I have a tailgater on a fast road (60 or 70), then I tend to slow down so I have more reaction time, and then let them past as soon as possible - it's dangerous to me, I'm going to make sure I'm OK. So I don't need to brake hard when I see a camera/van.
If I have a clear road behind me, then it doesn't matter how hard I use the brakes, so I up the speed.
Typically, I'm only driving to the conditions anyway - meaning on a dry B-road I'm one of the quickest, on a DC/M-way I'm average.
If I have a tailgater on a fast road (60 or 70), then I tend to slow down so I have more reaction time, and then let them past as soon as possible - it's dangerous to me, I'm going to make sure I'm OK. So I don't need to brake hard when I see a camera/van.
If I have a clear road behind me, then it doesn't matter how hard I use the brakes, so I up the speed.
Typically, I'm only driving to the conditions anyway - meaning on a dry B-road I'm one of the quickest, on a DC/M-way I'm average.
ripton said:
The cynic in me says that the emphasis is on getting more cash for the government. Get as many drivers on the road and the income increases through tax on fuel and these days speeding fines along with other taxes of course. Perhaps if they adopted the attitude that driving is a privilege and not a right then they might start making some progress in road safety.
[/back to real world with a jolt]
the govt are skint, they have made the partnerships self financing and anything else they put into transport needs to be highly visible, educating drivers and paying for more plod won't fit with their plan
7db said:
If you are really on the ball and a good driver, you will see the camera well before most motorists, and recognise that they are about to start heavy braking so you'll have already eased off to below the limit and created space in front and controlled the driver behind.
I'd say a good driver would be one concentrating on the muppets not looking for cameras
7db said:But why would any 'safety' (sic) organisation want to do anything that causes muppets to brake sharply and potentially create a more dangerous situation than perhaps driving at 10mph more than the limit they are enforcing?
If you are really on the ball and a good driver, you will see the camera well before most motorists, and recognise that they are about to start heavy braking so you'll have already eased off to below the limit and created space in front and controlled the driver behind.
Similarly when going over lines painted on the road -- when the camera is pointing in the other direction -- you should allow for the fact that many drivers will brake for he lines and position yourself accordingly.
It takes two drivers acting like muppets to cause one of these accidents. Blame the camera? Hardly.
It's a bit like creeping up on a mentally deranged psychopath holding a loaded gun and shouting
BOO! Noone is saying that the drivers are in the right if they cause an accident, but why do anything to make such an occurrance more likely? Surely the police, scamera pratnerships and everyone else understands there are muppets on the road - lets not move them even further outside of their comfort zone.
apache said:
If you are really on the ball and a good driver, you will see the camera well before most motorists, and recognise that they are about to start heavy braking so you'll have already eased off to below the limit and created space in front and controlled the driver behind.
I'd say a good driver would be one concentrating on the muppets not looking for cameras
Cause and effect - spot muppets braking ahead, you should be slowing anyway for a potential hazard.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff