RTA's at Camera sites - whos to blame?

[Tonyrec]

First of all, as everyone knows, im not a fan of Camera vans, Gatsos and the like, but it does strike a chord and invoke a reply when all people go on about is people braking sharply whenever they see a Camera or Van and an accident is caused or nearly caused by its position.

If someone does this - and ive seen it happen many a time as there are many drivers out there that i wouldnt trust with pushing a pram, never mind driving a car, then they deserve everything they get in my book.

There is simply no excuse for driving this way, a way which amounts to be," driving in such a manner that falls well below that of a reasonable, careful and competant person".

I know that this post will invoke some positive replies, some negative replies and some....well misinformed replies but i feel that it is a point to be made.

Some figures will appear saying that they are doing more harm than good but they are simply clouding over the fact that it comes down to basic BAD driving however you care to dress it up and /or disguise it to appease your own concience or bandwaggon.

I must also say, that iam a trained driver but iam far from perfect my self and i do also make mistakes but i like to think that my driving is of such a standard that i can plan far enough ahead not to be surprised by the placement of such Vans and Gatsos.

A perfect example of this is, " I was driving along the M40 quite happily thinking about other things when i looked up at the last minute, saw a Scamera van on the bridge above me. I panicked, stamped on the brakes, smoke everywhere and 4 cars smashed into the back of me. Bloody Scamera van shouldnt have been there, how irresponsible and the accident is down to him. In fact, i should sue the Police and the Partnerships......what do you think?

I also do not own or aspire to own a Speed detector, and by this im not saying that i dont speed, everyone speeds. Some just do it at an inappropriate time and place without thought and rely on electronic devices to save their licences.

We are all on this site because we loves cars, motorbikes and speed but lets lay off the easy targets and concentrate on constructive issues.

Sad thing is that when theres a collison at one of these sites by one of the aformentioned drivers, then the figures go into the "justification of the Scamera van pot", which we all know is wrong.

[james_j]

Both good drivers and bad will brake when they see a camera if they are over the limit and see the camera. It's just that the bad driver will not be aware of what's behind them and will just jam the brakes on and / or will slow down to well below the limit

Whatever, no camera I have driven past makes me feel as if I have been made safer in any way.

[Tonyrec]

james_j said:

Both good drivers and bad will brake when they see a camera if they are over the limit and see the camera. It's just that the bad driver will not be aware of what's behind them and will just jam the brakes on and / or will slow down to well below the limit Whatever, no camera I have driven past makes me feel as if I have been made safer in any way.

James i totally agree.

Scameras do not make me safer, they attempt to enforce the speed limit, not always the correct way in my book. But ive seen people lock up, smoke up ....for one of three reasons.

They havent got a clue what speed they are doing
They havent got a clue what the speed limit is
They havent got a clue where they are

All are pretty accurate in my experience, and when they are caught out, the blame OBVIUOSLY goes down to the Scamera.

Its just not good enough.

[mr2aw11]

Tonyrec said:

james_j said: Both good drivers and bad will brake when they see a camera if they are over the limit and see the camera. It's just that the bad driver will not be aware of what's behind them and will just jam the brakes on and / or will slow down to well below the limit Whatever, no camera I have driven past makes me feel as if I have been made safer in any way. James i totally agree. Scameras do not make me safer, they attempt to enforce the speed limit, not always the correct way in my book. But ive seen people lock up, smoke up ....for one of three reasons. They havent got a clue what speed they are doing They havent got a clue what the speed limit is They havent got a clue where they are All are pretty accurate in my experience, and when they are caught out, the blame OBVIUOSLY goes down to the Scamera. Its just not good enough.

It's not just people braking when they're over the limit either - just as big a problem are those that brake to well below the limit "just to be on the safe side". There's one camera I pass regularly in a 40 zone that I'm quite happy to pass at 40 indicated, but the numptys infront seem to panic, brake to 30, and bang goes my 2 sec. safety zone - one has to either momentarily drive too close until they speed up having passed the camera, or brake oneself, thus adding to the concertina effect behind; you try to anticipate this and leave a little bit of a larger gap, to allow for those ahead to slow, and the numptys behind are then far too close to your arse end!

edit for typo

>> Edited by mr2aw11 on Friday 3rd March 08:25

[rayats]

I can only speak personally. I drive as part of my work and I now spend most of my time whilst driving concentrating on the speed limit not on the traffic and road conditions. I have a Road Angel and I use it mainly to beep if I drift over the limit. In my home county of Dorset there has been a dramatic drop in the set speed limits and extensions of them far out into the country before a village. There are sections of less than 5 miles where the limit can change 8 or more times, I have been driving for 40 years and I cannot tell by looking at the road, its location and hazards, what the likely speed limit is. I can tell what I think a safe speed is but that's a different matter.
In answer to Tony I would perhaps feel comfortable if he were enforcing the limits but believe the Camera Partnerships, particularly those nearest home { Dorset/Avon & Somerset} to be vindictive. I do not believe they target roads where speeds greatly in excess of the speed limit are a danger but where they will catch the maximum number of drivers, at the ACPO recommende prosecution threshold, no matter what time of the day or night e.g. outside rural schools on summer evenings when there isn't a child for miles, but never there when kids are going and coming from them. The Partnerships do not want the public to be part of them and block all efforts to obtain information about any particular fixed or mobile camera i.e. The speed driver are being prosecuted for, the average / maximum speed driver are breaking the limit by and what time of the day or night. I have watched dorset partnership in operation and they are sloppy. At the ones I have seen there is no way the civilian operator would be able to assess the speed of the vehicle, they just blanket every vehicle.
I also believe the enforcement is political. The government have set targets and the Police in liason with the other member of the Partnership are using a blunt sword to try to achieve them.

[cuneus]

You can moan all you like about driving standards (something the goverment has recognised) but cameras do cause accidents

>> Edited by cuneus on Friday 3rd March 08:59

[Einion Yrth]

Lovely argument altogether; We have roads full of inattentive tailgating numpties, who, if they are forced to brake for any reason will more than likely cause shunts or pile ups. I know lets stick up a camera, that should force them to brake sharply, oh hang on......
This helps how exactly?

[puggit]

It is the utter distrust of the Scameraship setup which is to blame - people see a camera/van and brake because they do not trust the powers behind this equipment.

When I see a Trafpol vehicle I don't break sharply, I remove my foot from the right hand pedal - I do this because I know that Trafpol (by and large) exercise discretion and won't automatically do me for a couple of mph over the limit.

[deltafox]

Hi TC.

Blame? Well lets put it like this, if you had an item on the side of the road like a tank or a field gun aimed at cars and half hidden which periodically fired a shell over peoples heads as they passed it, youd pretty much get the effects you see at scamera sites now.

People would be distracted, afraid, overcautious when theres no need; the ones behind would be slamming on brakes to avoid the potential shot just like they do at scamera sites.

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?

If something kept popping up out of the road causing a distraction/panic effects to otherwise stable traffic flows then questions would be asked and actions taken to remove it surely. Itd be called a hazard.

In my example above the same factors are present at every scam site; fear, distraction, panic.

Its a sound road safety policy no?
I didnt think youd agree either!

So, in the final analysis, it has to be the scamera that are to "blame" for the continuing crashes at their "safety" sites TC as theyre the prime reason for rapid changes occuring in stable traffic flows, in other words, drivers reacting to a threat.

Keep it shiny side up hombre.




>> Edited by deltafox on Friday 3rd March 09:11

[chris watton]

In my experience, 'most' people brake to well under 10MPH under the limit when driving past a speed camera, and some do brake hard, that is darn annoying - however, in some speed camera sites, I am stone cold convinced that cameras have 'contributed' to accident rates, the A48 road, from Gloucester to Ross is a perfect example - I have seen countless (and that's no exageration) accidents near to the speed cameras, most quite serious, as the road's been closed on most occasions for hours - I have lost count of the times I have come home half an hour late from my 12 mile drive home from work.
I really do think that more 'proper' police should be out there, this is by far and away the best deterrent for drivers who really shouldn't have a licence, let alone drive - speed cameras seen only to exacerbate non-exsistant driving skills, hence they are dangourous for the 'majority, of normal, decent road users, but hey, lowest common denominator counts in UK society, so I guess we have to put up with it!

[ripton]

Tonyrec said:

....for one of three reasons. They havent got a clue what speed they are doing They havent got a clue what the speed limit is They havent got a clue where they are All are pretty accurate in my experience, and when they are caught out, the blame OBVIUOSLY goes down to the Scamera. Its just not good enough.

I absolutely agree.

If you are involved in a crash as a result of seeing a camera, or someone else seeing a camera it's likely to be in the following manner;-

You lose control and crash involving no-one else - you were travelling at speeds unsuitable for your ability or the conditions.

You brake hard and someone else ploughs into the back of your car - they we too close but you should have been aware of them and given way to them. They may have been tail gating but you have the ability to say "what a tw*t and move over"

You plough into the back of someone else - you were too close and should have given them more space until they gor out of your way regardless of whether they were travelling at 60 in the "fast" lane.

I'm not saying I'm perfect but if you drive within your ability and with others in mind i.e. defensively then you should never be involved in such an incident. If you treat everybody else on the road as being unsafe with a pram let alone a car then it's not an issue.

I'm not saying scameras are right either but given that they are there, they should be treated as another hazard just like the numpties out to kill you with their inability to drive.

Chris

>> Edited by ripton on Friday 3rd March 09:22

[Tonyrec]

cuneus said:

You can moan all you like about driving standards (something the goverment has recognised) but cameras do cause accidents >> Edited by cuneus on Friday 3rd March 08:59

David, im not doubting that the cameras cause accidents but it is down to the drivers inattention surely.

Put it this way, if a person locks up on a Motorway upon seeing a Scamera on a bridge and causes a pile up which kills people. That driver will be prosecuted for Death by Dangerous and not the Scamera van operator.

[Einion Yrth]

Tonyrec said:

cuneus said: You can moan all you like about driving standards (something the goverment has recognised) but cameras do cause accidents >> Edited by cuneus on Friday 3rd March 08:59 David, im not doubting that the cameras cause accidents but it is down to the drivers inattention surely. Put it this way, if a person locks up on a Motorway upon seeing a Scamera on a bridge and causes a pile up which kills people. That driver will be prosecuted for Death by Dangerous and not the Scamera van operator.

Why not just not put the fecking thing there so that the berk doesn't lock up in the first place?

[Tonyrec]

Einion Yrth said:

Tonyrec said: cuneus said: You can moan all you like about driving standards (something the goverment has recognised) but cameras do cause accidents >> Edited by cuneus on Friday 3rd March 08:59 David, im not doubting that the cameras cause accidents but it is down to the drivers inattention surely. Put it this way, if a person locks up on a Motorway upon seeing a Scamera on a bridge and causes a pile up which kills people. That driver will be prosecuted for Death by Dangerous and not the Scamera van operator. Why not just not put the fecking thing there so that the berk doesn't lock up in the first place?

Simply because in essence its there to detect speeding vehicles.

Ive had people say to me that the prescence of my car at the roadside causes people to panic brake and will cause an accident.....WTF !

Where does it all stop?

[Tonyrec]

ripton said:

Tonyrec said: ....for one of three reasons. They havent got a clue what speed they are doing They havent got a clue what the speed limit is They havent got a clue where they are All are pretty accurate in my experience, and when they are caught out, the blame OBVIUOSLY goes down to the Scamera. Its just not good enough. I absolutely agree. If you are involved in a crash as a result of seeing a camera, or someone else seeing a camera it's likely to be in the following manner;- You lose control and crash involving no-one else - you were travelling at speeds unsuitable for your ability or the conditions. You brake hard and someone else ploughs into the back of your car - they we too close but you should have been aware of them and given way to them. They may have been tail gating but you have the ability to say "what a tw*t and move over" You plough into the back of someone else - you were too close and should have given them more space until they gor out of your way regardless of whether they were travelling at 60 in the "fast" lane. I'm not saying I'm perfect but if you drive within your ability and with others in mind i.e. defensively then you should never be involved in such an incident. If you treat everybody else on the road as being unsafe with a pram let alone a car then it's not an issue. I'm not saying scameras are right either but given that they are there, they should be treated as another hazard just like the numpties out to kill you with their inability to drive. Chris >> Edited by ripton on Friday 3rd March 09:22

Totally agree

[Einion Yrth]

Tonyrec said:

Einion Yrth said: Tonyrec said: cuneus said: You can moan all you like about driving standards (something the goverment has recognised) but cameras do cause accidents >> Edited by cuneus on Friday 3rd March 08:59 David, im not doubting that the cameras cause accidents but it is down to the drivers inattention surely. Put it this way, if a person locks up on a Motorway upon seeing a Scamera on a bridge and causes a pile up which kills people. That driver will be prosecuted for Death by Dangerous and not the Scamera van operator. Why not just not put the fecking thing there so that the berk doesn't lock up in the first place? Simply because in essence its there to detect speeding vehicles. Ive had people say to me that the prescence of my car at the roadside causes people to panic brake and will cause an accident.....WTF ! Where does it all stop?

So detecting speeding vehicles is more important than avoiding RTCs? Somebody's priorities appear to be a bit screwed to me. As for people locking up on seeing your car, I suspect that this has only started to happen since the beginnings of this lunatic speed obsession - I certainly don't brake sharply if I see a traffic car ( not that that is very often) because I'm usually trying to be alert and at least within shouting distance of a speed I know plod is unlikely to do me for, and just easing off the gas is perfectly adequate.

[Tonyrec]

Einion Yrth said:

So detecting speeding vehicles is more important than avoiding RTCs? Somebody's priorities appear to be a bit screwed to me.

Not from me its not.

I still dont see how you can defend a dick who is always driving to 10 tenths, cant plan, cant see and who basically cant drive. Oh, and when the do crash they try to blame someone else.

Ive seen it all too often and it simply does not wash.

>> Edited by Tonyrec on Friday 3rd March 09:37

[Einion Yrth]

Tonyrec said:

Einion Yrth said: So detecting speeding vehicles is more important than avoiding RTCs? Somebody's priorities appear to be a bit screwed to me. Not from me its not. I still dont see how you can defend a dick who is always driving to 10 tenths, cant plan, cant see and who basically cant drive. Oh, and when the do crash they try to blame someone else. Ive seen it all too often and it simply does not wash. >> Edited by Tonyrec on Friday 3rd March 09:37

Yes they are dicks, and I'm not defending them. I am saying that while these dicks are on the roads, and I'd much rather they weren't, putting in place policies that cause the 2@s to crash into, not only each other, but also completely innocent parties, is the action of a complete loon.

[jeremyc]

Tonyrec said:

Einion Yrth said: So detecting speeding vehicles is more important than avoiding RTCs? Somebody's priorities appear to be a bit screwed to me. Not from me its not. I still dont see how you can defend a dick who is always driving to 10 tenths, cant plan, cant see and who basically cant drive. Oh, and when the do crash they try to blame someone else. Ive seen it all too often and it simply does not wash.

I don't think anyone here is defending the actions of those who have these accidents. Clearly they are to blame and there is a huge need to improve driving standards generally.

However, why aggravate the situation by putting a scamera van there? It serves no purpose and in no way acts to improve the driving of those passing it.

My solution: use the services of your good self and like-minded colleagues to cruise up and down having suitable words with those whose driving you don't think is up to scratch.

[deltafox]

TonyRec said:

Ive had people say to me that the prescence of my car at the roadside causes people to panic brake and will cause an accident.....WTF ! Where does it all stop?

Such is the damage done to the police/public relations by speed cameras TC.

The police are seen as part of the problem, not as our friends, theyre seen as being supportive of speed camera policies and its persecution of drivers (whatever the real situation) and this is why drivers react the way they do.

Where does it all stop? The answer is of course when sensible policing, enforcement and fairness is re-introduced. Only then will drivers act differently.
Oh and when all speed limits and scameras are scrapped. Speedos arent necessary at all anyway unless your time trialling.......