Road Safety Van Causes Accident .

[Streetcop]

I've lost count at the numbers of accidents I've witnessed or been next to at accidents scenes....

All too busy watching what is going on and not the road in front...

That's why there are over 50 separate TV programs each week about the emergency services..the public are absolutely fascinated by it, even at the risk to their own safety..


Street

[towman]

cen said:

towman said: Sorry, but the camera is not causing accidents. Lack of driving skill and observation is the cause. Steve Grow up Steve there are regulations governing the correct signage for alterations to the National Speed Limit which would of course be 70 on a motorway.

Wow - you like to come out fighting dont you.

1. I dont need to grow up, I`m 44 years old.

2. Your first post states that there was a sign showing a change in the speed limit.

cen said:

If you read the post correctly it states a sign with a camera with a static camera harsh braking can not be avoided.

please translate into English

Steve



>> Edited by towman on Tuesday 28th September 19:56

[medicineman]

Ok we are told time and time again that the "speed limits" are set according to the lowest common denominator but the position of speed camera and definately scamera vans isn't and yet we wonder why accident rates are going up and up? As I said in an earlier post the reaction to such is now "stand on the middle pedal". Time to consider the lowest common demoninator again?

[bluepolarbear]

So the logic of some seems to be

1) We know the roads are plagued by numpties
2) Only numpties would rear-end the car in front because, well because they are numpties
3) Lets place a delibrate man made hazard on the road so that cars break catching out numpties.
4) We get £60 if the numpty is car one for speeding and a Due Care conviction if they are car 2 for hitting the car in front.

Great logic, great scheme - just hope I am not the non numptie in car 1 who gets my car written off and 4 months of work for whiplash.

What are we doing delibrately putting hazards on the road!!!

[Streetcop]

What next...total ban on mini-skirts in public..

Street

[Apache]

Streetcop said:

What next...total ban on mini-skirts in public.. Street

At least mini skirts don't pretend to be making our roads safer

[Streetcop]

Apache said:

Streetcop said: What next...total ban on mini-skirts in public.. Street At least mini skirts don't pretend to be making our roads safer

But they do slow down traffic....



Street

>> Edited by Streetcop on Wednesday 29th September 00:12

[Apache]

now that's what I call a major step forward in road safety!

[towman]

Streetcop said:

What next...total ban on mini-skirts in public.. Street

Only if they flash at fast cars!

Steve

[8Pack]

safespeed said:

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

Hi Paul, I believe that the totally "over the top" approach to motorway speed especially has caused total paranoia in the mind of the motorist and is now contributing to accidents.

Last Sunday driving south on the M6 (2 overhead bridges north of Junc.33) An estate car on the bridge decided to do a three point turn ON the bridge, (yes, I know!) stupid or what?

The result was when the rear of the car was facing the oncoming traffic beneath, all hell let loose below.
And yet No-one was doimg more than around 72 mph! Caused simply by the paranoia created by the activities of the scamera vans. I was in the first lane and was not affected but others in other lanes came "mighty" close to a number of accidents.

Now some policemen would blame the drivers. But they have to realise that it is the policy that is creating a knee-jerk reaction to ANYTHING which is "out of the ordinary". I have a clean licence, but I react to anything that moves also, speeding or not!

We really must get the message out that camera's are about cuts in taxes and services, nothing to do with safety at all, the Safety message is for the already brainwashed who will believe anything the "authorities" tell them. I know you are doing YOUR best Paul, please don't give up. 8Pack.

[bluepolarbear]

Streetcop said:

What next...total ban on mini-skirts in public.. Street

Last time I checked the police and SCP were not spending millions on girls in mini skirts and getting them to walk up down NSL causing accidents in order to determine who the nupties were.

But I sure you would support it if they did. Anything to increase the number of hazards and dangers on the road seems OK by you.

[Streetcop]

bluepolarbear said:

Anything to increase the number of hazards and dangers on the road seems OK by you.

Moi

[gh0st]

Streetcop said:

bluepolarbear said: Anything to increase the number of hazards and dangers on the road seems OK by you. Moi

Yeah! You personally Street

[Streetcop]

Ok...

[rsvmilly]

Street

I had a look at the website you linked to for the mini-skirted girl (very nice) and I'm intrigued as to how you stumbled upon it;

www.nncitygirls.com/

[Yugguy]

problem in this country is that in the eyes of the rabid speed kills lentil eaters those of us who cruise safely on the motorway at 80 are placed in exactly the same category as the chav in the Saxo hooning past the school doing 50.

[safespeed]

8Pack said:

We really must get the message out that camera's are about cuts in taxes and services, nothing to do with safety at all, the Safety message is for the already brainwashed who will believe anything the "authorities" tell them. I know you are doing YOUR best Paul, please don't give up. 8Pack.

Thanks.

The only potential threat to my continuing efforts is funding. It's a pretty big struggle. Folk can join Safe Speed or send donations via:

www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html

But what I really need are patrons or sponsors. If anyone has any ideas, or could put in the legwork trying to find some decent funding, then please get in touch. You can email me at [e-mail]

[Apache]

Trouble is Paul, it's a political hot potato and, considering the amount of money involved, bound to be ensnared in corruption. No one is going to give up this kind of revenue without a fight.

We seem to have countless 'safety' groups and road safety 'experts' spouting the same nonsense with startlingly obvious flaws in their arguments........and nothing to contradict them apart from yourself, even the media can't make any difference.

Good luck mate

[safespeed]

Apache said:

Trouble is Paul, it's a political hot potato and, considering the amount of money involved, bound to be ensnared in corruption. No one is going to give up this kind of revenue without a fight. We seem to have countless 'safety' groups and road safety 'experts' spouting the same nonsense with startlingly obvious flaws in their arguments........and nothing to contradict them apart from yourself, even the media can't make any difference. Good luck mate

Thanks. Quite.

That's why I need to be able to command serious resources. There must be someone reading this who can help...

I know just what to do with 250,000 pounds next year. Really.

[TripleS]

Streetcop said:

What next...total ban on mini-skirts in public.. Street

Certainly not. I need something - and they will do nicely - to keep refreshing my observation skills.

In that respect they are a safety aid.

Best wishes all,
Dave.