Safety Camera or Speed - Who's at fault?
Discussion
Accident today on A3 just after Esher heading into town.
Caused a jam as you would expect. When I got to the area of the accident, it was at the site of a Safety camera.
Skid marks were through the markings for the camera, and one of the cars had been shunted front and rear.
This was where the A3 goes from 3 to 2 lanes, from 70 mph to 50mph speed limit.
Question 1
Did the accident happen due to someone speeding and seeing the camera, and hitting the brakes hard causing the following car to hit it???
Qestion 2.
Did as sometimes happens, driver saw the camera/markings and automatically hit the brakes whether they were speeding or not causing said accident???
Question 3
Would the accident have happened if the safety camera had not been there???
answers on a postcard...........
PS
(BIB were checking the camera for photographic evidence)
Caused a jam as you would expect. When I got to the area of the accident, it was at the site of a Safety camera.
Skid marks were through the markings for the camera, and one of the cars had been shunted front and rear.
This was where the A3 goes from 3 to 2 lanes, from 70 mph to 50mph speed limit.
Question 1
Did the accident happen due to someone speeding and seeing the camera, and hitting the brakes hard causing the following car to hit it???
Qestion 2.
Did as sometimes happens, driver saw the camera/markings and automatically hit the brakes whether they were speeding or not causing said accident???
Question 3
Would the accident have happened if the safety camera had not been there???
answers on a postcard...........
PS
(BIB were checking the camera for photographic evidence)
Looking at this from the flip side:
The accident may not have been related to the proximity of the camera. It could well have happened whilst all drivers were within the limit, hence panic braking not needed.
We all know that 95%-97% of all KSIs are not because of speeding, odd considering speed cameras are touted as the be all and save all for road safety
The accident may not have been related to the proximity of the camera. It could well have happened whilst all drivers were within the limit, hence panic braking not needed.
We all know that 95%-97% of all KSIs are not because of speeding, odd considering speed cameras are touted as the be all and save all for road safety
Unfortunately the question:-
"Would the accident have happened if the camera wasn't there?"
is not valid as a investigation into cause. If this is not obvious, consider the questions:-
"Would the accident have happened if the second car wasn't there?"
"Would the accident have happened if the cars were driving slower?"
None of which uncover "cause".
"Would the accident have happened if the camera wasn't there?"
is not valid as a investigation into cause. If this is not obvious, consider the questions:-
"Would the accident have happened if the second car wasn't there?"
"Would the accident have happened if the cars were driving slower?"
None of which uncover "cause".
deltafox said:I hadn't realised Esher was in Strathclyde ... you live and learn
Ah yes, but the camera didnt perform its "safety" function ie, stopping accidents, as proclaimed by strathclydes scameraship, " Cameras cut crashes"....yeah right, course they do.....and Adolf Hitler was just misunderstood and need a hug.
- Streakyparrot of doom said:
IMO the cause of the accident here was the stupid person who slammed the anchors on, and a contributory factor was the cars around who didn't leave a large enough gap to stop.
Ah. So an admission that those involved were going too fast!
(in a round about way) 
. Go on. You can say it parrot...
Any speed is safe as long as you allow yourself enough time and space to react to any possible hazard. The skill in driving is to assess these hazards accurately. These skills however are not taught. Instead a one size fits all blanket speed enforcement and reduction policy is implemented with the result that your average head-up-arse numpty has neither the training nor the experience to avoid such accidents..... Was the camera the cause of this accident? No, but the road safety policy that installed it has got to bear some of the blame....
The accident happened when someone responded to an emergency situation by braking hard, as they would, for example if a dog ran out in front.
Following driver(s) were either too close or were inattentive, meaning they failed to avoid the braking vehicle.
Emergencies like these are particularly likely to have catastrophic consequences when other factors are already distracting drivers -- for example if the available lanes are being reduced.
Somebody with 9 points will regard a surprise speed camera appearance as an absolute emergency since getting caught again could mean the loss of their livelihood, house, marriage, etc and will always brake hard because the consequences of being caught speeding are so great.
I don't care that they should have seen it earlier, to place a camera in this location will always create a steady stream of new accidents, whilst stopping none.
SM
ps Look at the A14/A11 eastbound intersection for another example of a (new) camera placed by imbeciles that will only cause accidents whilst stopping none.
Following driver(s) were either too close or were inattentive, meaning they failed to avoid the braking vehicle.
Emergencies like these are particularly likely to have catastrophic consequences when other factors are already distracting drivers -- for example if the available lanes are being reduced.
Somebody with 9 points will regard a surprise speed camera appearance as an absolute emergency since getting caught again could mean the loss of their livelihood, house, marriage, etc and will always brake hard because the consequences of being caught speeding are so great.
I don't care that they should have seen it earlier, to place a camera in this location will always create a steady stream of new accidents, whilst stopping none.
SM
ps Look at the A14/A11 eastbound intersection for another example of a (new) camera placed by imbeciles that will only cause accidents whilst stopping none.
Unfortunately, there will always be total numpties on the road with poor observation skills. Even those of us with better than average observation skills can be caught out and not notice a camera in an unfamiliar area.
Human nature is such that panic braking will occur at speed camera sites. No matter how one dresses it up to blame the drivers, it is a fact of life.
For me, the ideal solution would be to abolish scameras and go back to the old system of trafpol pulling dangerous / inconsiderate drivers and letting the rest of us get on with our lives.
A poor runner up would be to clearly signpost ALL scameras and talivans and ONLY where they actually occur for real. In conjunction with this, each and every camera should have a speed limit repeater sign either physically attached to it or a short distance before it, as again its human nature to miss or forget what the current limit is (especially in these stupid times of artificially reduced limits on perfectly safe, fast roads).
Human nature is such that panic braking will occur at speed camera sites. No matter how one dresses it up to blame the drivers, it is a fact of life.
For me, the ideal solution would be to abolish scameras and go back to the old system of trafpol pulling dangerous / inconsiderate drivers and letting the rest of us get on with our lives.
A poor runner up would be to clearly signpost ALL scameras and talivans and ONLY where they actually occur for real. In conjunction with this, each and every camera should have a speed limit repeater sign either physically attached to it or a short distance before it, as again its human nature to miss or forget what the current limit is (especially in these stupid times of artificially reduced limits on perfectly safe, fast roads).
From my reading of this it would appear that an accident happened because a driver failed to respond correctly to a hazard.
In other words there were (at least) two essential ingredients that led to the accident - the presence of a hazard, and the incorrect response from the driver. Remove either one from the equation and that particular accident would have been prevented.
In other words there were (at least) two essential ingredients that led to the accident - the presence of a hazard, and the incorrect response from the driver. Remove either one from the equation and that particular accident would have been prevented.
gone said:
IMO the cause of the accident here was the stupid person who slammed the anchors on, and a contributory factor was the cars around who didn't leave a large enough gap to stop.
Ah. So an admission that those involved were going too fast!
Go on. You can say it parrot...
Actually, at no point did I say anybody was driving too fast. Please try not to confuse the issue.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff