RE: Speed Cameras Watch As Accidents Increase

[911motorsport]

Mr_Dave said:

Well its official! Speed camera causes death:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/bo...

Very sad loss of a life, all in the name of "safety".

[TVRWannabee]

I've no doubt this has appeared elsewhere, but nonetheless...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8719263/S...

[Vipers]

911motorsport said:

Mr_Dave said:

Well its official! Speed camera causes death:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/bo...

Very sad loss of a life, all in the name of "safety".

Very sad indeed, but lets not forget he was driving at nearly 30 mph over the limit, and if he couldnt reduce his speed then, he probably couldn't have reduced it for an incident on the road either.

But as I say, tis sad indeed. I fully support that cameras do cause accidents though.

[ZesPak]

Vipers said:

Very sad indeed, but lets not forget he was driving at nearly 30 mph over the limit, and if he couldnt reduce his speed then, he probably couldn't have reduced it for an incident on the road either.

That's actually not the point, the point is that he probably wouldn't have died without the cameras.

The point is that cameras don't catch dangerous drivers, they catch drivers driving over the posted limit.
I would be pro speed cameras, if the limits they impose would look half-sensible

For example, 70mph at night on a dual carriage way is nuts, while 30mph or even lower near a school (DURING SCHOOL START/END HOURS!) is ok by me.

[paranoid airbag]

ZesPak said:

The point is that cameras don't catch dangerous drivers, they catch drivers driving over the posted limit who aren't paying sufficient attention to notice a luminuous yellow box.
I would be pro speed cameras, if the limits they impose would look half-sensible

ftfy - my main reason for not understanding a lot of the scamera hate. Not all, by any means, but the majority of cameras I've seen - including mobile ones - shouldn't be a problem. They're miles better than humps, anyway - which do punish you regardless of speed or skill.

[Vipers]

ZesPak said:

Vipers said:

Very sad indeed, but lets not forget he was driving at nearly 30 mph over the limit, and if he couldnt reduce his speed then, he probably couldn't have reduced it for an incident on the road either.

That's actually not the point, the point is that he probably wouldn't have died without the cameras.

The point is that cameras don't catch dangerous drivers, they catch drivers driving over the posted limit.
I would be pro speed cameras, if the limits they impose would look half-sensible

For example, 70mph at night on a dual carriage way is nuts, while 30mph or even lower near a school (DURING SCHOOL START/END HOURS!) is ok by me.

Not wanting to enter a long drawn out discussion, my thoughts was that an experienced motorcylists, (quoted in the article), chose to exceed road speed by 30mph, and couldn't slow his bike down without loosing it, sad as it is, so whatever had occurred could have ended in the same situation, it accident ahead, animals on the road etc, yes he slowed for the camera, but whatever he slowed down for could have resulted in the same outcome.

We could say it wasn't the camera, it was his inability to control his bike. Anyway lets not dissagree to dissagree that was my thinking when I posted. As I said earlier, I do support that cameras do and can cause accidents.

[PJ S]

911motorsport said:

Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.

As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.

I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.

If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.

Genuinely sorry to hear that, and glad you're still here, but whilst you're correct in one respect, it's patently obvious you were too close to the vehicle in front, with no sightline of what was ahead.
Unfortunately, you weren't driving to the road, but rather the vehicle in front of you - hence wrecking yourself, as well as the car.
The GATSO could've just as easily been a broken-down car, an animal, or pre-existing accident, which if any of them hadn't been there, would've let you off the hook - but doesn't excuse your lack of planning and thinking ahead.

I presume you now allow yourself more distance between yourself and a preceding vehicle, just in case - so a lesson learned, albeit painfully.

[PJ S]

911motorsport said:

Utter tosh! Or are you suggesting every time a car overtakes me I immediately brake, without regard to other vehicles behind me, so that I instantly have the correct distance between us?

I thought you were an advanced driver?
Off the throttle, cover the brake pedal.....you'd have also been aware of his manoeuvre if you'd been paying attention to your mirrors, and lifted off as a precautionary.
Need any more help with remembering how normal drivers operate their vehicle?

Advanced bullster more like....you'd be well to get a refund on your lessons, and check the certificate you were given when you passed. Sounds like you've been had.

Edited by PJ S on Sunday 28th August 03:35

[Dark Helmet]

I've only ever been in 1 accident, some time back. It was totally my fault, simple fact. I did not leave sufficient room in front for reaction and braking, thankfully it was only a low velocity impact and did no damage to the other vehicle, just knocked my bumper moorings off. Very embarrassing and a wake-up call, I could easily blame the twunt for jamming the brakes on when the lights changed to amber, especially as he was less than 1 car length from them. Wet road didn't help.

I tend to allow extra space if I see erratic or otherwise crap driving in front of me, I'll then let the tailgaters bloody well get on with it if they want to as I don't want another bump. I tend to monitor my distance from other vehicles (not just those in front) far more than I look at my speedo


Try driving in Nairobi. Seems utter chaos and no speed enforcement to speak of but I never witnessed 1 accident. All down to observation and reaction.



DH

[Zod]

PJ S said:

911motorsport said:

Utter tosh! Or are you suggesting every time a car overtakes me I immediately brake, without regard to other vehicles behind me, so that I instantly have the correct distance between us?

I thought you were an advanced driver?
Off the throttle, cover the brake pedal.....you'd have also been aware of his manoeuvre if you'd been paying attention to your mirrors, and lifted off as a precautionary.
Need any more help with remembering how normal drivers operate their vehicle?

Advanced bullster more like....you'd be well to get a refund on your lessons, and check the certificate you were given when you passed. Sounds like you've been had.

Edited by PJ S on Sunday 28th August 03:35

The guy is a compulsive liar and fantastist. Just check his posting record.

[Johnnytheboy]

On some other thread I contributed to, somebody pointed out that the recently released stats have shown that some cameras have seen an increase in accidents but some have seen a reduction, and therefor it's too simplistic to say that they don't work.

Surely - given that 'speed kills' has been the central plank of the state's road safety message for the best part of 20 years - one would expect an immediate and statistically significant casualty reduction at each and every camera site?

Either that, or 'speed kills' is simply wrong.

[Vipers]

Johnnytheboy said:

On some other thread I contributed to, somebody pointed out that the recently released stats have shown that some cameras have seen an increase in accidents but some have seen a reduction, and therefor it's too simplistic to say that they don't work.

Surely - given that 'speed kills' has been the central plank of the state's road safety message for the best part of 20 years - one would expect an immediate and statistically significant casualty reduction at each and every camera site?

Either that, or 'speed kills' is simply wrong.

Of course speed kills, if the car wasn't moving = speed, when it hit something, no one would be killed

But hey, agree totally with your post, so why not those camera sites which have seen an increase in accidendts, remove them, those which show a decrease, leave there, perhaps it's as simple as this, but I guess it's not though.

I think bottom line is we have to educate a lot of drivers amongst us on basic road craft, a daily walk through town alone demonstrates that majority have absolutely no idea how to use a box junction, classic situation, car in front of queu waiting to turn right, lights go green, does he move onto the box and wait, does he hell, they sit at the white line, when he gets a filter light, he is the only one to get through, whereas if he went on the box, the guy behind him wanting to turn right as well could enter the box as well behind him. I dispare sometimes.