FAO Safe Speed

[Muncher]

Paul, you may be interested in this unfortunate incident:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/show

Other Forum said:

I witnessed the aftermath of a car crash this morning made me feel sick all day but there is a question I would like some discussion on. The scene I was driving toward Newcastle at about 8.20. Was on the stretch of road from Whitemare Pool to Heworth Metro Station (if any one know it). It had been snowing overnight and the roads were a but iced up but nothing too bad. It may help to describe the road. It is a dual carriage way with a limit of 50. There is a speed camera on the carriage way heading into Newcastle area. This road however many people often ignore the speed limits on the other carriage way heading away from Newcastle (this will become important later). Between the 2 carriageways is some metal fencing about 5 foot ish high. I passed a car crash that could have only happened moments ago. A N reg Clio had been heading on the carriage way coming from Newcastle and had some how skidded and turned 90 degrees and smashed into the metal fencing. Is I drove passed i could see a person in the passenger side in a very bad way. There was a man with a radio (not police) looking into the car and I presume seeking assistance from the emergency services. I did not get a good view but I could not see the driver. Also it looked like the passengers head was pouring with blood and he may have been impaled on one of the metal fencing rods as it had penetrated the car from the passenger side window. Now you are probably thinking what an unfortunate accident and hope the guy gets better etc however my final observation is what I would like peoples opinion on. On the hard shoulder of the carriage way the car was driving along was a mobile speed camera unit only 10 or so yards down from where the accident happened and the person looking into the car with the radio was the person who was from that van. My question is this was the speed camera van in some way responsible for the accident? and if it hadnt been there would the accident have happened? I havent posted my opinion on this so please dont flame me. However on my "limited" knowledge and view it would appear that the clio was going too fast saw the mobile camera unit braked heavy and the skidded on some black ice. What do other people think.

[Chris D]

Muncher said:

Paul, you may be interested in this unfortunate incident: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/show Other Forum said: I witnessed the aftermath of a car crash this morning made me feel sick all day but there is a question I would like some discussion on. The scene I was driving toward Newcastle at about 8.20. Was on the stretch of road from Whitemare Pool to Heworth Metro Station (if any one know it). It had been snowing overnight and the roads were a but iced up but nothing too bad. It may help to describe the road. It is a dual carriage way with a limit of 50. There is a speed camera on the carriage way heading into Newcastle area. This road however many people often ignore the speed limits on the other carriage way heading away from Newcastle (this will become important later). Between the 2 carriageways is some metal fencing about 5 foot ish high. I passed a car crash that could have only happened moments ago. A N reg Clio had been heading on the carriage way coming from Newcastle and had some how skidded and turned 90 degrees and smashed into the metal fencing. Is I drove passed i could see a person in the passenger side in a very bad way. There was a man with a radio (not police) looking into the car and I presume seeking assistance from the emergency services. I did not get a good view but I could not see the driver. Also it looked like the passengers head was pouring with blood and he may have been impaled on one of the metal fencing rods as it had penetrated the car from the passenger side window. Now you are probably thinking what an unfortunate accident and hope the guy gets better etc however my final observation is what I would like peoples opinion on. On the hard shoulder of the carriage way the car was driving along was a mobile speed camera unit only 10 or so yards down from where the accident happened and the person looking into the car with the radio was the person who was from that van. My question is this was the speed camera van in some way responsible for the accident? and if it hadnt been there would the accident have happened? I havent posted my opinion on this so please dont flame me. However on my "limited" knowledge and view it would appear that the clio was going too fast saw the mobile camera unit braked heavy and the skidded on some black ice. What do other people think.

I think the hyperlink you attached gives a fair reflection of views.
The camera van could have been any vehicle.
At the end of the day it sounds like driver error - again!

[deltafox]

Muncher said:

I havent posted my opinion on this so please dont flame me. However on my "limited" knowledge and view it would appear that the clio was going too fast saw the mobile camera unit braked heavy and the skidded on some black ice.

No flames from me, but how do we know he was "going too fast"????

The possibility that he panicked when seeing the camera is a very real one, and its likely that had the van not been there, he'd never have taken the avoiding action that he did.

Road safety my arse, another innocent driver half killed because of "safety" cameras!

[Chris D]

deltafox said:

Muncher said: I havent posted my opinion on this so please dont flame me. However on my "limited" knowledge and view it would appear that the clio was going too fast saw the mobile camera unit braked heavy and the skidded on some black ice. No flames from me, but how do we know he was "going too fast"???? The possibility that he panicked when seeing the camera is a very real one, and its likely that had the van not been there, he'd never have taken the avoiding action that he did. Road safety my arse, another innocent driver half killed because of "safety" cameras!

Delatfox - you can't believe that?! As you say, no one knows what speed he was doing.
But it is the driver's reaction - or over reation - to any hazard which ultimately determines the outcome. Hazard recognition and perception is at the core of good driving. Forget the speed argument. Ending up in the central reservation is down to driver error.
As I said in my last entry - the camera van could have been anything. Had it been an AA van, would we blame the 4th emergency services for this accident? No.

[tvradict]

Whats to say the scamera van wasn't driving along the road just behind the crash and pulled up 10yds past the accident to keep the road clear for the Police/Ambulance/Fire?

I think blaming a camera van is a bit much.

The only person who's knows exactly what happened is the person driving the Clio.

[flemke]

Chris D said:

Delatfox - you can't believe that?! As you say, no one knows what speed he was doing. But it is the driver's reaction - or over reation - to any hazard which ultimately determines the outcome. Hazard recognition and perception is at the core of good driving. Forget the speed argument. Ending up in the central reservation is down to driver error. As I said in my last entry - the camera van could have been anything. Had it been an AA van, would we blame the 4th emergency services for this accident? No.

Chris,

It may have been as simple a matter as the Clio's driver reflexively taking his/her eyes off the road for a moment to check the speedo. An AA van or any other unthreatening vehicle would not have caused a similar reaction.
The driver may have over-reacted and, as you say, good drivers are expected not to over-react. I think that Deltafox's point is that there will always be a range of driver abilities and conditions, and that the less skilled and alert of them are more vulnerable and a greater risk to others. That being certainly the case, is it not a shame that the SCPs create extra and unnecessary distractions as they blindly pursue their own jihadist agendas?

[Chris D]

Deltafox's point is that there will always be a range of driver abilities and conditions, and that the less skilled and alert of them are more vulnerable and a greater risk to others. That being certainly the case, is it not a shame that the SCPs create extra and unnecessary distractions as they blindly pursue their own jihadist agendas?

I do agree with the first sentence. It is the blanket attempt to blame the scamera vans that I don't understand. To a large degree I don't like them either. It would be a worrying thought for me if, by standing at the side of the road with my patrol car, I would be accused of being the cause of an accident that may have happened in the vicinity.

[Muncher]

deltafox said:

Muncher said: I havent posted my opinion on this so please dont flame me. However on my "limited" knowledge and view it would appear that the clio was going too fast saw the mobile camera unit braked heavy and the skidded on some black ice. No flames from me, but how do we know he was "going too fast"???? The possibility that he panicked when seeing the camera is a very real one, and its likely that had the van not been there, he'd never have taken the avoiding action that he did. Road safety my arse, another innocent driver half killed because of "safety" cameras!

I didn't post that, I agree with you.

Whenever I see a scamera va, my immediate reaction is "oh shit".

[flemke]

Chris D said:

I do agree with the first sentence. It is the blanket attempt to blame the scamera vans that I don't understand. To a large degree I don't like them either. It would be a worrying thought for me if, by standing at the side of the road with my patrol car, I would be accused of being the cause of an accident that may have happened in the vicinity.

I can understand that sentiment. I would think that there would usually be no cause for concern.

For most of us regular folk, I daresay, there is a massive difference between a police officer and a camera operator. The police officer's job is to assist and serve the public, and it can entail everything from unpleasant circumstances to putting one's life at risk. We respect police officers as a group, with good reason.
The police officer's employment does not (in theory, at least - I gather that sometimes you get measured by 'clean-up' or 'detection' rates) depend on his or her ability to generate income by catching people out. Therefore most police officers, most of the time, are a lot more interested in whether people are behaving responsibly than in a literal interpretation of the speed limit, which may have just happened to change or is inappropriate for that piece of road.
That's what I believe, at least, and I'm sticking with it!
If I come upon a police vehicle, I expect that any officer who observes me is more interested in my road positioning, awareness of hazards, correct interaction with other road users, etc., and as long as my speed isn't out of line with the conditions or with other contemporaneous road users, that speed is not a primary issue. Hence I'm not put off by a police car coming into view.

In contrast, I know that the creature in the camera van is only looking for one thing - people who are doing >x speed. Quality driving is beside the point. Coming upon that van, it's natural that any of us would immediately concentrate, if only for a moment, on the question of what our speedo says. Every moment that we spend doing that is a moment taken away from more important things, such as that bit of the road forty feet ahead that looks a bit darker than the rest of the asphalt, or the flash of bright colour along the verge ahead that could be a child's sleeve.

[Chris D]

flemke said:

Chris D said: I do agree with the first sentence. It is the blanket attempt to blame the scamera vans that I don't understand. To a large degree I don't like them either. It would be a worrying thought for me if, by standing at the side of the road with my patrol car, I would be accused of being the cause of an accident that may have happened in the vicinity. I can understand that sentiment. I would think that there would usually be no cause for concern. For most of us regular folk, I daresay, there is a massive difference between a police officer and a camera operator. The police officer's job is to assist and serve the public, and it can entail everything from unpleasant circumstances to putting one's life at risk. We respect police officers as a group, with good reason. The police officer's employment does not (in theory, at least - I gather that sometimes you get measured by 'clean-up' or 'detection' rates) depend on his or her ability to generate income by catching people out. Therefore most police officers, most of the time, are a lot more interested in whether people are behaving responsibly than in a literal interpretation of the speed limit, which may have just happened to change or is inappropriate for that piece of road. That's what I believe, at least, and I'm sticking with it! If I come upon a police vehicle, I expect that any officer who observes me is more interested in my road positioning, awareness of hazards, correct interaction with other road users, etc., and as long as my speed isn't out of line with the conditions or with other contemporaneous road users, that speed is not a primary issue. Hence I'm not put off by a police car coming into view. In contrast, I know that the creature in the camera van is only looking for one thing - people who are doing >x speed. Quality driving is beside the point. Coming upon that van, it's natural that any of us would immediately concentrate, if only for a moment, on the question of what our speedo says. Every moment that we spend doing that is a moment taken away from more important things, such as that bit of the road forty feet ahead that looks a bit darker than the rest of the asphalt, or the flash of bright colour along the verge ahead that could be a child's sleeve.

I accept your sentiments totally.
However, a reaction which ends up with the car in the central reservation, with or without serious injury, must involve some other factor. Surely not the simple presence of the bod in the van. Driver's inability to deal with ANY hazard? I dont think that this drivers accident was caused by him 'trundling' along, and having a momentary glance at his speedo - which as you say is natural for us all. But, to het impaled in the central res?

[flemke]

Chris D said:

I accept your sentiments totally. However, a reaction which ends up with the car in the central reservation, with or without serious injury, must involve some other factor. Surely not the simple presence of the bod in the van. Driver's inability to deal with ANY hazard? I dont think that this drivers accident was caused by him 'trundling' along, and having a momentary glance at his speedo - which as you say is natural for us all. But, to het impaled in the central res?

Okay, but I've been caught out by unseen black ice, despite the fact that cars ahead travelling at my speed went across it without incident, simply because the engine in my car was in a different place from theirs.
Sometimes a very subtle change will tip the balance from business-as-usual to a potentially nasty moment.

I've no idea what caused the RTA in question. We see people who over-react to camera vans or fixed ones all the time. It is regrettable, but it is also entirely predictable. To the extent that we do not abide in a perfect world filled with perfect people, the SCPs could at least acknowledge the part they play in causing those over-reactions.
And of course if each and every camera and van were highly visible so that all drivers could readily perceive them before the moment when they might be in the line of fire (sometimes many hundreds of metres away, no?), there would never be the need for a hasty over-reaction.

[Chris D]

flemke said:

Chris D said: I accept your sentiments totally. However, a reaction which ends up with the car in the central reservation, with or without serious injury, must involve some other factor. Surely not the simple presence of the bod in the van. Driver's inability to deal with ANY hazard? I dont think that this drivers accident was caused by him 'trundling' along, and having a momentary glance at his speedo - which as you say is natural for us all. But, to het impaled in the central res? Okay, but I've been caught out by unseen black ice, despite the fact that cars ahead travelling at my speed went across it without incident, simply because the engine in my car was in a different place from theirs. Sometimes a very subtle change will tip the balance from business-as-usual to a potentially nasty moment. I've no idea what caused the RTA in question. We see people who over-react to camera vans or fixed ones all the time. It is regrettable, but it is also entirely predictable. To the extent that we do not abide in a perfect world filled with perfect people, the SCPs could at least acknowledge the part they play in causing those over-reactions. And of course if each and every camera and van were highly visible so that all drivers could readily perceive them before the moment when they might be in the line of fire (sometimes many hundreds of metres away, no?), there would never be the need for a hasty over-reaction.

Warning about speed check areas is compulsory - advanced warning etc. That's why there should be no 'surprise'. Pay attention I say to those motorists. Anyway,on the other matter, black ice is a lot different a scenario to the scamera van. Come on?

[deltafox]

Hi Chris D.

Well i tend to believe what i see, and scamera vans DO indeed cause panic reactions even amongst those drivers who are travelling below the speed limits, its a fact widely reported and acknowledged on here as well as on other forums.

Anything that compromises a drivers attention or otherwise subjects them to shock, like the aforementioned scamera vans is a bad thing.
Shock causes a reaction. How drivers react to it is pretty obvious id say.

Your point regarding a parked up AA vehicle or any other van is a valid one, but its negated by the fact that scamera vans do indeed cause panic reactions, therefore they are the root cause of a change in the behaviour of a driver just travelling along an otherwise empty road. So it follows that they are a hazard to drivers; they cause a reaction that otherwise wouldnt occur, and lets not forget that they dont have to be there in the first place.
If they were hidden then there would be no reaction but then the false road safety message that the scum partnerships are founded on would be exposed for what it is; a sham. No reaction equals no one crashing but plenty of fines being doled out....perfect except for one slight contradiction: "We only want to slow you down"....only one problem there, we cant see you...all we see is the nip 14 days after...great "safety" strategy no? and kind of lays bare the "safety" lie dont you think?

The truth of the matter is, if these vans werent plying their filthy trade, the reaction to "other" vans wouldnt happen either, problem solved.

Scam vans are a source of crashes, which is why we will see an increase in front of them, just like with gatso's.

They should burn the lot of them.

[Chris D]

deltafox said:

Hi Chris D. Well i tend to believe what i see, and scamera vans DO indeed cause panic reactions even amongst those drivers who are travelling below the speed limits, its a fact widely reported and acknowledged on here as well as on other forums. Anything that compromises a drivers attention or otherwise subjects them to shock, like the aforementioned scamera vans is a bad thing. Shock causes a reaction. How drivers react to it is pretty obvious id say. Your point regarding a parked up AA vehicle or any other van is a valid one, but its negated by the fact that scamera vans do indeed cause panic reactions, therefore they are the root cause of a change in the behaviour of a driver just travelling along an otherwise empty road. So it follows that they are a hazard to drivers; they cause a reaction that otherwise wouldnt occur, and lets not forget that they dont have to be there in the first place. If they were hidden then there would be no reaction but then the false road safety message that the scum partnerships are founded on would be exposed for what it is; a sham. No reaction equals no one crashing but plenty of fines being doled out....perfect except for one slight contradiction: "We only want to slow you down"....only one problem there, we cant see you...all we see is the nip 14 days after...great "safety" strategy no? and kind of lays bare the "safety" lie dont you think? The truth of the matter is, if these vans werent plying their filthy trade, the reaction to "other" vans wouldnt happen either, problem solved. Scam vans are a source of crashes, which is why we will see an increase in front of them, just like with gatso's. They should burn the lot of them.

Your point regarding a parked up AA vehicle or any other van is a valid one, but its negated by the fact that scamera vans do indeed cause panic reactions, therefore they are the root cause of a change in the behaviour of a driver just travelling along an otherwise empty road. So it follows that they are a hazard to drivers; they cause a reaction that otherwise wouldnt occur, and lets not forget that they dont have to be there in the first place.[/]

My only reaaction to a scamera van is to do the 'human nature' thing - look at the speedo.
If I crash into the Central Reservation - I won't be blaming the van!!

Perhaps every DSA driving test route should include a scamera van on the route? Then drivers could hone their observation skills, and polish their hazard perception skills. Would that help?