Road Safety Van Causes Accident .
Discussion
On the B4000 today the RSV had set out a radar speed sign both ways, right next to the Van two cars smashed, obviously one braked very hard on seeing van and signs, other reared her.
Woman was giving civilian speed partnership dude a piece of her mind ..
As I drove away I wondered if the goverment keeps stats on accidents caused by Speed Safety partnership vans
Woman was giving civilian speed partnership dude a piece of her mind ..
As I drove away I wondered if the goverment keeps stats on accidents caused by Speed Safety partnership vans
Streetcop said:
Due care and attention at it's finest...Muppetry also..
And thats very true but would the accident have occured if the van had not been there?
Watched an american program where a lorry jacknifed when it saw a cop with a laser and panicked. Apparently the lorry was doing just 57 in a 55 limit.
That stretch of road previously had had no accidents for a L O N G while. So the laser caused an accident.
How can the scamera partnerships prove that they "save lives" anyway? Do they use the power of Brunstroms ego to go back in time and see both outcomes to do their stats? Its either that or some other freaky method because I will be f
ked if the results tally up.... 
gh0st said:I posted a little while back about how this happend to me near Warwick. Real brown trouser moment when a trucker coming the other way jacknifed after clocking the scamera van I had just passed; the bed of his trailer can't have missed my car by more than 20 feet. I seriously doubt he was speeding, but I was wll aware of him frantically looking around for a speed limit sign, totally unaware that he was about to top me and my family. Fortunately the trailer swung the other way just in time - I was pretty much stationary by then, with nowhere to go otherwise.
Due care and attention at it's finest...Muppetry also..
And thats very true but would the accident have occured if the van had not been there?
Watched an american program where a lorry jacknifed when it saw a cop with a laser and panicked. Apparently the lorry was doing just 57 in a 55 limit.
That stretch of road previously had had no accidents for a L O N G while. So the laser caused an accident.
How can the scamera partnerships prove that they "save lives" anyway? Do they use the power of Brunstroms ego to go back in time and see both outcomes to do their stats? Its either that or some other freaky method because I will be f
This Sh*t happens - Street does himself no favours by being blase and dismissive. It would be no consolation to my orphaned son that his parents had been killed in front of his eyes because the other driver was a "muppet". Well thats OK then, innit? Seems there is an outbreak of muppetry if you ask me.
Last year I witnessed an example of extreme muppetry when a camera van placed itself on a bridge near a usual very busy junction (34) instead of its usual place on 35.
I would estimate the outside lane was slowing from an average of 80 - 60 as normal as it went around the long sweeping bend (it's seems all the accidents on the m4 happen around long sweeping bends as these are the places where they seem to place the vans to "protect" us).
This happens most mornings and rarely involves braking, people are expecting a queue, and slow expectantly. But on this day suddenly there was a mass of red brake lights, lorries running on to the hard shoulder to avoid panicing drivers (the majority doing the same speed as the lorries they were intermingled with) or into the middle lane, causing them to brake sharply or attempt the outside lane, more sharp braking etc.
That area has an accident about once or twice a week, everyone of them I would say happen around 50 mph below the speed limit, usually caused by people not paying attention as the traffic starts to move again.
This was nothing short than a cynical attempt to fleece drivers, I cannot see how it can be defended in any other way and it nearly ended in a large number of smashed cars and injured people. Fortunatley, perhaps because they were expcting a queue and they were ready to slow, I only counted a few minor bumps.
It was when I was put in danger by these muppets directly that I started taking a larger interest in these evil machines, their operators and the damage they do to our society.
Cheers
Paul
I would estimate the outside lane was slowing from an average of 80 - 60 as normal as it went around the long sweeping bend (it's seems all the accidents on the m4 happen around long sweeping bends as these are the places where they seem to place the vans to "protect" us
). This happens most mornings and rarely involves braking, people are expecting a queue, and slow expectantly. But on this day suddenly there was a mass of red brake lights, lorries running on to the hard shoulder to avoid panicing drivers (the majority doing the same speed as the lorries they were intermingled with) or into the middle lane, causing them to brake sharply or attempt the outside lane, more sharp braking etc.
That area has an accident about once or twice a week, everyone of them I would say happen around 50 mph below the speed limit, usually caused by people not paying attention as the traffic starts to move again.
This was nothing short than a cynical attempt to fleece drivers, I cannot see how it can be defended in any other way and it nearly ended in a large number of smashed cars and injured people. Fortunatley, perhaps because they were expcting a queue and they were ready to slow, I only counted a few minor bumps.
It was when I was put in danger by these muppets directly that I started taking a larger interest in these evil machines, their operators and the damage they do to our society.
Cheers
Paul
Tonyrec said:
Sadly thou, it doesnt have to be a Camera Van. A parked up Trafpol car has the same effect.
(When i say parked up i dont mean being sneaky......simply being at an Accident scene is good enough nowadays)
Funny you should say that because as we then speeded up after the junction back to the same speeds as prior to the van there was a marked car on the "viewing gallery" and no braking took place at all (just the customary easing off that most of us are used to)- this was noted in my letter to the Chief Constable the day after.
Fortunately I have never seen a van on that bridge at rush hour since, don't know how many people complained, but I reckon a few.
(Appreciate you see the effect a lot more than me)
Cheers
Paul
Streetcop said:Hi Street
Whats the alternative? Street
You know what I'm about to say. Imagine the position of one of Canada's finest a few years ago. One week it's "Muppetry. Speed Kills. Slow Down. Vans and Traps Save Lives". Then your political masters say "Actually all forms of photo radar are being ditched because automated speed enforcement has no safety benefits, is arbitrary, heavy handed, represents intrusive big government, does serious harm to police-public relations so that witness cooperation and recruitment are badly hit, and can only be sustained by a well-funded spin machine, but is very good at generating revenue" i.e. the whole charade is a pointless and useless pack of lies designed to tax car owners for daring to make good progress. Then all the vans and cameras are gone. What do their plod say the next week? As for this lady driver, let's assume (please) that she was travelling at a safe speed for the conditions, inside or outside the increasingly arbitrary and ridiculously slow speed limits that we find these days. She has been practising effective observation allied to anticipation and hazxard awareness and can stop in the distance she can see will remain clear. Then she realises, only when close up, having noted the parked vehicle long ago but not its precise nature, that it's a 'Tiny Bliar and the Road Safety Muppets' indirect taxation van and, being a responsible person, feels some guilt at the possibility that her safe speed may have drifted 2mph too high for the sandalistas and - hits the brakes.
This whole sorry episode does nothing but illustrate what a God-forsaken waste of time and space any form of automated speed detection is. If she hadn't been involved in a crash she may have had her piccy taken and continued on her way, depending on her speed and the whim of the SCAMP. If her driving speed, or anyone else's, really is a danger, why the ferkin hades are they allowed to continue instead of being stopped? Kerching. Ker-bl**dy-ching.
Think Canada. We too must ditch automated speed enforcement. Watch road safety improve and FEEL that better sense of respect the public will have for the police when it happens.
Going against the grain here...........
Vehicle 1 - Driver obviously observant, saw van and slowed.
Vehicle 2 - driver not observant, driving too close, end result almost a foregone conclusion.
No sympathy. There could have been a number of reasons for a sudden slowing - animals, kids, mechanical failure etc. Driver 2 was a numpty. Given the amount of complaints on here about tailgating, why are so many looking elsewhere for blame?
Steve
Vehicle 1 - Driver obviously observant, saw van and slowed.
Vehicle 2 - driver not observant, driving too close, end result almost a foregone conclusion.
No sympathy. There could have been a number of reasons for a sudden slowing - animals, kids, mechanical failure etc. Driver 2 was a numpty. Given the amount of complaints on here about tailgating, why are so many looking elsewhere for blame?
Steve
towman said:Don't think so really
Going against the grain here.
towman said:Agreed, I don't think many posts have focused on the second driver, who seems from what we've read to be blameworthy. Agree totally with what you say.
Vehicle 2 - driver not observant, driving too close, end result almost a foregone conclusion. No sympathy.Steve
I am so going to slam the brakes on next time a plod is behind me! Whats the betting I get done for dangerous driving, and plod will be blameless.
Jeez, more rank hipocrasy and holier than thou bullshit from the countries finest.
How about explaining exactly what errors of judgement I displayed in the scenario I described earlier? I'd be fascinated to know here I slipped up, I try to learn from my betters whenever I can. Well?
Jeez, more rank hipocrasy and holier than thou bullshit from the countries finest.
How about explaining exactly what errors of judgement I displayed in the scenario I described earlier? I'd be fascinated to know here I slipped up, I try to learn from my betters whenever I can. Well?
towman said:
Going against the grain here...........
Vehicle 1 - Driver obviously observant, saw van and slowed.
Vehicle 2 - driver not observant, driving too close, end result almost a foregone conclusion.
No sympathy. There could have been a number of reasons for a sudden slowing - animals, kids, mechanical failure etc. Driver 2 was a numpty. Given the amount of complaints on here about tailgating, why are so many looking elsewhere for blame?
Steve
Maybe. But here's a different scenerio.
Front driver, at a safe AND LEGAL speed, sees camera van, but although he knows both the speed limit and his speed he decides to brake because he can't be certain enough of his speed to bet 25% of his driving licence on a split second decision.
Rear driver, at a safe and legal speed and a safe following distance, sees camera van, but although he knows both the speed limit and his speed he decides to LOOK DOWN AT THE SPEEDO because he can't be certain enough of his speed to bet 25% of his driving licence on a split second decision.
This combination of front driver braking and rear driver checking speedo (both in response to seeing the same speed camera) is clearly reasonable, likely and dangerous. That 2 second gap gets consumed at one hell of a rate. Add in a mirror check, or any tiny distraction that makes the rear driver miss the first half second of the front driver's braking and we get accidents.
Speed cameras (uniquely amongst hazards) tend to make some drivers look away from the road and down at the speedo.
Far too much driver attention appears to be given to the speedo in the immediate vicinity of a speed camera. When I ran a straw poll survey, 70% of drivers reported giving up 40% or more of their attention to the speedo when passing a speed camera. See:
www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff