is accelerating quick an offence
Discussion
ca092003 said:
At least I am trying to stimulate the debate about what is causing the problems on our roads unlike StreetCop who tells simply that excess speed is the problem.
But it is. In one way or another!
ca092003 said:
Oh and that certain laws don't apply to Bib's!I take heart from the fact that StreetCop's views do not appear to be the norm for the other Bib on this forum.
But they don't its a fact in law. Those that do when they are not on duty are as much of a risk to them as they are to you or anyone else. They are also a risk on duty as well sometimes
>> Edited by gone on Monday 18th October 00:26
GregE240 said:
PS, you wrote:
Streetcop said:
"You wont be familiar with the working of the Road Death investigation manual..so I'll be patient...
1) Continuity of evidence...ie: I travelled with the body to the hospital and that is....."
You're right, but I know a man who was.
I think you mean "evidence of continuity", rather than "continuity of evidence"?
He means continuity of evidence! That is what it is about.
The body in the wreck accompanied to the mortuary by the officer who saw it in the wreck.
The officer that saw it in the wreck having it identified to them as being the body of Mr/Mrs/Ms XXXXX, by a relative etc
The Officer identifying the body to the coroners officer and the pathologist so that the pathologist examines the correct body.
That is continuity of evidence and not evidence of continuity.
gone said:
gone said:
Contributory/causation factors are exactly the same!
No they are not.
Perhaps you would like to explain the difference then?
OK, here's an exmaple:
Vehicle A is at a T junction waiting to turn right. Vehicle B is approaching from the right hand side and will continue down the road. The road is subject to a 30MPH speed limit restriction. Vehicle B is doing 29 MPH.
When vehicle B is approximately 25 feet from the junction, vehicle A pulls out. Vehicle B T-bones Vehicle A.
What is the causation factor of the collision?
Simple. Lack of observation of the driver of Vehiicle A.
Any contributory factors?
I'm not sure, to be honest.
Now let us imgine that vehicle B is doing 59MPH. The same incident occurs.
The causation factor is still the fact that the driver of Vehicle A pulled out without looking. (or looked but didn't register the car)
Casuation factor?
Clearly the excessive speed is a contributory factor but that is all.
The way I look at it is to take away the causation factor and would the accident still have occured? Answer: No.
Take away the contributory factors and would the accident have still occured? Answer: Yes Why? BECAUSE THE MAIN FACtOR IN THE ACCIDENT IS THE FACT THAT THE DRIVER OF VEHICLE A PULLED OUT WHEN HE SHOULDN'T
HAVE.
ca092003 said:
OK, here's an exmaple:
Vehicle A is at a T junction waiting to turn right. Vehicle B is approaching from the right hand side and will continue down the road. The road is subject to a 30MPH speed limit restriction. Vehicle B is doing 29 MPH.
When vehicle B is approximately 25 feet from the junction, vehicle A pulls out. Vehicle B T-bones Vehicle A.
What is the causation factor of the collision?
Simple. Lack of observation of the driver of Vehiicle A.
Any contributory factors?
I'm not sure, to be honest.
Now let us imgine that vehicle B is doing 59MPH. The same incident occurs.
The causation factor is still the fact that the driver of Vehicle A pulled out without looking. (or looked but didn't register the car)
Casuation factor?
Clearly the excessive speed is a contributory factor but that is all.
The way I look at it is to take away the causation factor and would the accident still have occured? Answer: No.
Take away the contributory factors and would the accident have still occured? Answer: Yes Why? BECAUSE THE MAIN FACtOR IN THE ACCIDENT IS THE FACT THAT THE DRIVER OF VEHICLE A PULLED OUT WHEN HE SHOULDN'T
HAVE.
Which just goes to show that you really ought to attend a traffic patrol course as you really have no idea
I listed a number of contributory/causation factors in a previous post. Page 9 ithink but you chose to ignore them. I admit they are from memory bu they are the main ones to be considered and the actual form has nmany more printed on it.
>> Edited by gone on Monday 18th October 00:45
gone said:
OK, here's an exmaple:
Vehicle A is at a T junction waiting to turn right. Vehicle B is approaching from the right hand side and will continue down the road. The road is subject to a 30MPH speed limit restriction. Vehicle B is doing 29 MPH.
When vehicle B is approximately 25 feet from the junction, vehicle A pulls out. Vehicle B T-bones Vehicle A.
What is the causation factor of the collision?
Simple. Lack of observation of the driver of Vehiicle A.
Any contributory factors?
I'm not sure, to be honest.
Now let us imgine that vehicle B is doing 59MPH. The same incident occurs.
The causation factor is still the fact that the driver of Vehicle A pulled out without looking. (or looked but didn't register the car)
Casuation factor?
Clearly the excessive speed is a contributory factor but that is all.
The way I look at it is to take away the causation factor and would the accident still have occured? Answer: No.
Take away the contributory factors and would the accident have still occured? Answer: Yes Why? BECAUSE THE MAIN FACtOR IN THE ACCIDENT IS THE FACT THAT THE DRIVER OF VEHICLE A PULLED OUT WHEN HE SHOULDN'T
HAVE.
Which just goes to show that you realy ought to attend a traffic patrol course as you really have no idea
Presumably the wink is your way of not needing to 'correct' my example. Come on then, what are the causation and contributory factors?
gone said:
Presumably the wink is your way of not needing to 'correct' my example. Come on then, what are the causation and contributory factors?
You see, you are still not reading the posts.
Look on page 9. I am not going to type them out again!
No no no no no.
Please answer the question about the example I gave you. I told you what the causation factor was and you rubbished it. So let's have your expert opinion. ca092003 said:
No no no no no.
Read page 9. They are exactly the same for the example of the fatal accident on the dual carriageway!
gone said:
No no no no no.
Read page 9. They are exactly the same for the example of the fatal accident on the dual carriageway!
OK, I've read it again. So you do agree with me that Vehicle A pulling out was the causation factor for the exampel I gave you? Yes or No? If no, why not.
In case you are wondering why I am up at this ungodly hour - restless cat kicked me out of bed Am on stand-by just in case the "restlessness" turns into something else ..... have tomorrow as occasional day off anyway - which is just as well....
But each one of the above had "human error".
1. Loss of control - was he fiddling with hi-fi/ using "Handy" as Wildy calls 'em, was there mud or something on the road? Did he spy speed cam sign and brake harshly?
2. Bad overtake, driver misjudges position and fails to adjust for the bend. Admittedly speed may have been excessive on the bend - but human error nonetheless.
3. Again human error - failure to read road correctly - assuming he kerbed it to avoid a pot hole. Again - could have been fiddling with hi-fi or holding his Handy.... may even have swerved to avoid something straddling the white line as well...
4. Micro climate? Grease on road? Again driver error misjudging road condition and not adjusting his drive as result.
Yet more reasons why we should concentrate on educating drivers to actual causation factors rather than just telling them to "slow down" because even a speed to the limit or even bubbling just under may not have been the "safe speed"
Am on stand-by just in case the "restlessness" turns into something else ..... have tomorrow as occasional day off anyway - which is just as well.... Streetcop said:
The fatal ones in my county this year have been along the lines of:
1) Car leaves road and hit tree...
2) Car hit oncoming car on bend
3) Car hit kerb and bounces across road
4) Car spins and crosses central reserve.
etc etc...
Excessive speed both for the limit and certainly for the conditions and location..
Street
But each one of the above had "human error".
1. Loss of control - was he fiddling with hi-fi/ using "Handy" as Wildy calls 'em, was there mud or something on the road? Did he spy speed cam sign and brake harshly?
2. Bad overtake, driver misjudges position and fails to adjust for the bend. Admittedly speed may have been excessive on the bend - but human error nonetheless.
3. Again human error - failure to read road correctly - assuming he kerbed it to avoid a pot hole. Again - could have been fiddling with hi-fi or holding his Handy.... may even have swerved to avoid something straddling the white line as well...
4. Micro climate? Grease on road? Again driver error misjudging road condition and not adjusting his drive as result.
Yet more reasons why we should concentrate on educating drivers to actual causation factors rather than just telling them to "slow down" because even a speed to the limit or even bubbling just under may not have been the "safe speed"
gone said:
I can think of lots of situations where excess speed is the cause.
Here is one. 'Driver travelling towards a junction too fast and over shoots it into the path of another
Still a human error - he misjudges the road ahead and the junction and fails to apply brakes properly.
gone said:
In the next county, there was a Fatal Accident the other day. The driver was trying to cross a dual carriageway. He pulled out in front of a van. The car was T-boned and car driver was killed.
Lots of contributory factors involved in this one. Excess speed may be one of them
Could have being travelling at 30 mph and same result - especially with a large heavy van (Luton or something) T-boning it.... But human error - driver making the turn misjudged speed of the van. Find a lot take a chance when I am tootling along at 27 mph ....
They seem to misjudge this lower speed more than the higher one.... do you know why?
cos I have no idea on that one.... gone said:
That particular road is covered by speed cameras.
What is likely to be the causation factor of the crash?
1. Veh 1 is usually the one at fault.
Contributory factors could be =
a) Pulling into carriageway heedless of traffic
b) limited visibility due to vegetation/street furniture
c) illness/drink/drugs
d) failing to comply with give way/stop junction
e) Street lighting failure
f) Driver fatigue
g) vehicle defect.
2. Veh 2 contributory factors
a) Driver travelling at in excess of limit
b) Driver travelling too fast for conditions
c) Alcohol/drugs/illness
d) Road defect
e) Street lighting failure.
f) Driver fatigue.
g) vehicle defect.
In other words - most down to human errors and not speed per se...
gone said:
In my opinion (for what it is worth) the collision was caused because the car driver made an error of judgement and tried to slip into a gap that wasn't there.
And your opinion is worth nothing because you are guessing and know only a little about the subject!
And GMP placed an advert on the back of the local buses
95% OF ALL ACCIDENTS ARE CAUSED BY HUMAN ERROR! THINK!!!!!! GMP caring about your Road Safety
Um - GMP = Greater Manchester Police!
Sounds fair to me....
Gotta go - a restless cat wants a saucer of hot milky chocolate.... will let you know if this is start of kitten no 5.....or is she just being one of those wimmin ....
Mad Moggie said:
Could have being travelling at 30 mph and same result - especially with a large heavy van (Luton or something) T-boning it.... But human error - driver making the turn misjudged speed of the van. Find a lot take a chance when I am tootling along at 27 mph ....
They seem to misjudge this lower speed more than the higher one.... do you know why?
Hmmm. I have this problem - but the other way round, ie. I see a vehicle approaching slowly and think it's coming faster than it really is. (So at least I'm out on the safe side!)
I would guess it's something to do with the mechanics of how we perceive the speed of an approaching vehicle... perspective and parallax are only changing slowly, and it's harder to judge small changes than large ones... which is pretty vague, but seems to be on the right lines to me.
GregE240 said:
You wont be familiar with the working of the Road Death investigation manual..so I'll be patient...
1) Continuity of evidence...ie: I travelled with the body to the hospital and that is the body that is identified to me as John Smith by his next of kin.
2) At post mortems the officer in the case should be present to allow the coroner to ask pertinent questions, should they arise.
Like I said, I'm sure you're unfamiliar with road death investigations, so I will forgive your adolescent ramblings about part time morticians or last rites to the patient etc..
Street
How patronising of you. You don't know me.
I don't need to know you to respond to the ill-informed tripe you were spouting....
GregE240 said:
This pious attitude of yours is getting on my nerves.
I'm glad...
Street
ca092003 said:I would imagine that when it comes to dealing with RTAs, the answer to that is yes. Not in any way connected to BiB and not read all previous posts
And BiB wonder why people have little respect for them. Grow up. OK, you're a BiB - So what? Have you suddenly some sort of world monopoly of knowledge or experience?
MEMSDesign said:
And BiB wonder why people have little respect for them. Grow up. OK, you're a BiB - So what? Have you suddenly some sort of world monopoly of knowledge or experience?
I would imagine that when it comes to dealing with RTAs, the answer to that is yes. Not in any way connected to BiB and not read all previous posts
So why aren't these experts using their experience to reduce the number of people killed on our roads? (Road deaths in 2003 actually rose!)
I wonder if it could be down to the fact that the issue of road safety is a complex one and that no particular group of people hold all the answers? And that simple messages like "Speed Kills" are dangerous.
The idea of this forum is to stimulate debate, which is what I am trying to do and ignoring cheap personal shorts from the BiB and others.
ca092003 said:
So why aren't these experts using their experience to reduce the number of people killed on our roads? (Road deaths in 2003 actually rose!)
Experienced Police officers have had little or no input to road safety policy for a decade now. It's a big part of the problem.
From about 1950 until about 1990, Hendon was a top consultee on any proposed policy change.
Something happened suddenly in the early 1990s to break this link. I have heard that that the DfT asked Hendon experts if speed cameras were a good idea. Hendon experts said no. The DfT didn't believe them, and then went on to conspire with the Home Office to break up the skills pool at Hendon. The old "class one" standard was condemned as "elitist" and replaced by a new lower standard called "advanced". Hendon are no longer consulted.
safespeed said:
So why aren't these experts using their experience to reduce the number of people killed on our roads? (Road deaths in 2003 actually rose!)
Experienced Police officers have had little or no input to road safety policy for a decade now. It's a big part of the problem.
From about 1950 until about 1990, Hendon was a top consultee on any proposed policy change.
Something happened suddenly in the early 1990s to break this link. I have heard that that the DfT asked Hendon experts if speed cameras were a good idea. Hendon experts said no. The DfT didn't believe them, and then went on to conspire with the Home Office to break up the skills pool at Hendon. The old "class one" standard was condemned as "elitist" and replaced by a new lower standard called "advanced". Hendon are no longer consulted.
Yes the ones who are "advanced" are somehow more knowledgable about road safety than the older "class one" guys. At least that is how it appears here on PH.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff