A40 Gatso Eastbound @ North Circ

[xxxxxxrich]

Coming down the A40 this morning into London and there was a nice pile of broken glass and bumper in the middle of the Gatso markings, Lane 2.
I guess the rather crumples looking VW Golf (I think) saw it a few seconds before the large van!

Oops.

[jeffreyarcher]

Interesting insurance angle. Who pays?
Historically there weas no excuse for running into the back of someone. If you did, it was your fault.
Then some case law changed that, late '60s IIRC. You had to have a good reason for stopping suddenly, and a dog running out wasn't a good reason.
So, is this a good reason, I wonder?

[silverback mike]

Got to be worth a test case.

[cazzo]

'Safety Camera?'

[xxxxxxrich]

cazzo said:

'Safety Camera?'

Err? Well it rid the road of another car, the VW won't be back, from the quick glance I got the taillights were sitting over the rear axle.
Isn't that what the government want? All the cars off the road.

[tonyrec]

Sounds like a stone bonker 'Without Due Care' at the very least to me

[nonegreen]

Sooner or later an insurance company must recover losses from a murderdeathkill partnerships coffers. At least 40% of any rear ender within the cameras curtellige has to be the fault of those who placed the hazard. Ie. The camera.

[tonyrec]

Just think of how many drivers who have a poor standard of driving have had a wake up call.
This time its the rear of a car, next time a kid.

Im just playing 'devils advocate' here as its all too easy for someone to blame something/someone else for their own failings.......this is fact and i see it almost everyday when im out patrolling.

[nonegreen]

tonyrec said:

Just think of how many drivers who have a poor standard of driving have had a wake up call. This time its the rear of a car, next time a kid. Im just playing 'devils advocate' here as its all too easy for someone to blame something/someone else for their own failings.......this is fact and i see it almost everyday when im out patrolling.

If you mean the camera was not a hazard that was a contributing factor then you are in denial. Any risk analyst will produce sufficient evidence for an insurnace company claim to be succesful it is only a matter of time.

[Mr2Mike]

nonegreen said:

If you mean the camera was not a hazard that was a contributing factor then you are in denial. Any risk analyst will produce sufficient evidence for an insurnace company claim to be succesful it is only a matter of time.

I would say the main hazard was the pillock driving the Golf in a semi-comatose state. Whilst I hate speed cameras and camera vans with a vengence, cuasing an accident by not paying attention suggests the majority of blame should be apportioned to the driver.

[xxxxxxrich]

Mr2Mike said:

I would say the main hazard was the pillock driving the Golf in a semi-comatose state. Whilst I hate speed cameras and camera vans with a vengence, cuasing an accident by not paying attention suggests the majority of blame should be apportioned to the driver.

The Golf driver or the one that stuffed into him? Not knowing what happned exactly I guess the assumption is that Golf and Van were driving faster than the limit and Golf hit the breaks, van didn't. Is not the van to blame for not being able to stop within the distance.... He was either too close or the Golf was slowing down rather quick.

I drove past it this morning at 7am the Golf is still there on the side of the road.

Anyway I would never smash my breaks on without knowing what's behind me or having an escape route, I hope!

[tonyrec]

nonegreen said:

If you mean the camera was not a hazard that was a contributing factor then you are in denial. Any risk analyst will produce sufficient evidence for an insurnace company claim to be succesful it is only a matter of time.

Eh?????????