M4 Protest Article from Bristol Evening Post
Discussion
Bristol Evening Post said:
200 JOIN IN GO SLOW PROTEST
BY MARC COOPER
11:00 - 02 May 2005
More than 200 motorists took part in a slow drive demonstration on the M4 to protest about a decision to use more speed cameras on the motorway. Police said Saturday's protest on both carriageways of the motorway caused one accident and several complaints.
The convoy of about 200 cars and 50 motorbikes drove between two service stations in Wiltshire during the morning.
Campaign group M4 Protest, which organised the action, said it was in response to the decision that seven new speed cameras and marked police cars would be used to monitor speed on the motorway.
The group said it had planned to drive in lanes one and two at 56mph, because that was the speed limit for HGV lorries - which meant the protest would not be dangerously slow.
But police said many of the drivers taking part were going well below the agreed speed.
Inspector Wayne Smith, of Wiltshire police, said the event passed without any major incident.
He said: "They made their protest and their point. It went smoothly. We had one accident caused by them not driving at the agreed 56mph.
"The speed went down to 30mph. We tried to get them to speed up but they refused.
"Two vehicles, which were nothing to do with the protest, were involved in a collision next to junction 16.
"There were no injuries, but the collision was a direct result of the protesters' actions.
"We had a couple of complaints of dangerous driving, which we will be following up."
Those taking part met at Membury service station, near Hungerford, and at Leigh Delamere, near Chippenham.
They set off at about 11am and took about an hour to complete the journey.
M4 Protest spokesman Paul Smith said protest was a success.
Mr Smith said: "We don't know the exact figure but it was about 200 cars and 60 or so motorbikes.
"I think it went fine. We did not mess up the traffic flow of the motorway, which is how we wanted it.
"There was some delays getting on to the motorway, which meant we were a bit stretched out, but we have raised our profile, which is what we wanted."
The M4 Protest group claims the extra speed cameras will not make the motorway safer, and is being used to generate money.
Anyone wanting more information about the M4 protest can visit www.m4protest.org
www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145176&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144906&contentPK=12352560
So, simple old me asks the following question:
"Two vehicles, which were nothing to do with the protest, were involved in a collision next to junction 16.
"There were no injuries, but the collision was a direct result of the protesters' actions."
So the protesters are driving below the speed limit, perfectly within the law and two other non connected people crash into each other "as a direct result of the protesters' actions." Just how is that then??
Own goal to that man from Wilts Police me thinks.
Tony
Nah, not the two drivers who ran into each other who were at fault, it was the people driving below them on the motorway that did it. Blimey if there was a camera there you would be in big trouble!
The spin will get this up to "DANGEROUS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEED CAUSE DORIS AND DAISEY TO CRASH"
Yep it is a mad world.
The spin will get this up to "DANGEROUS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEED CAUSE DORIS AND DAISEY TO CRASH"
Yep it is a mad world.
Yeah right - isn't that the best confirmation that it is bad driving rather than speeding that kills?
A driver needs to be able to judge the speed on the road around him. I drove up the M5 today and the speed of the traffic was changing from 60 to zero in the same one mile stretch (mainly caused by people rubber necking breakdowns but that's another story). So if I drove into the back of the car in front of me - does that make it their fault for slowing down? I thought that made it my fault for not judging the speed of the traffic around me and driving appropriately.
A driver needs to be able to judge the speed on the road around him. I drove up the M5 today and the speed of the traffic was changing from 60 to zero in the same one mile stretch (mainly caused by people rubber necking breakdowns but that's another story). So if I drove into the back of the car in front of me - does that make it their fault for slowing down? I thought that made it my fault for not judging the speed of the traffic around me and driving appropriately.
piglet said:
So if I drove into the back of the car in front of me - does that make it their fault for slowing down? I thought that made it my fault for not judging the speed of the traffic around me and driving appropriately.
It's your fault for speeding of course.... >> Edited by Jewhoo on Monday 2nd May 17:42
Inspector Wayne Smith, of Wiltshire police, said the event passed without any major incident.
He said: "They made their protest and their point. It went smoothly. We had one accident caused by them not driving at the agreed 56mph.
"The speed went down to 30mph. We tried to get them to speed up but they refused.
"Two vehicles, which were nothing to do with the protest, were involved in a collision next to junction 16.
"There were no injuries, but the collision was a direct result of the protesters' actions".
What nonsense. Those involved in that collision were responsible for their shunt by failing to drive in a manner that was appropriate to the conditions. It was nothing to do with the M4 Protest group.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
He said: "They made their protest and their point. It went smoothly. We had one accident caused by them not driving at the agreed 56mph.
"The speed went down to 30mph. We tried to get them to speed up but they refused.
"Two vehicles, which were nothing to do with the protest, were involved in a collision next to junction 16.
"There were no injuries, but the collision was a direct result of the protesters' actions".
What nonsense. Those involved in that collision were responsible for their shunt by failing to drive in a manner that was appropriate to the conditions. It was nothing to do with the M4 Protest group.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
What a load of codswallop.
Blimey if the people who crashed cant even drive properly at 30mph then what hope is there?
Surely their scamera will have the same efect then as people will slow down for them which will therefore cause crashes.
Should do the drivers for undue care and keep us out of it.
Blimey if the people who crashed cant even drive properly at 30mph then what hope is there?
Surely their scamera will have the same efect then as people will slow down for them which will therefore cause crashes.
Should do the drivers for undue care and keep us out of it.
TripleS said:
I saw an HGV belonging to TNT make two brief excursions into lane 3 (eastbound) in order to do a bit of overtaking. We know they're not supposed to use lane 3 but it was no problem as far as I was concerned.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Agreed.
At one point i was in the middle lane and a lorry came storming up behind me flashing its lights from way off..I waved and moved out of the way cos he was just trying to keep his speed up on an uphill stretch ..I figured is was only fair.
It's a shame to see the Police attempting to spin an apparently unrelated accident as "the protest's fault". But I imagine raising heads above parapets in a hugely politicised police service is a sure way to a beat posting in the nastier parts of Swindon.
I loved the irony of "We tried to get them to speed up but they refused."
So let me get this right...
People driving faster than 70 causes accidents, so we're going to impose cameras. But there was an accident caused by people driving slower than 70. Of course! It's because those noble defenders of the law and Right, the Camera Vans, stayed at home on Saturday. Strange - I would have thought a Bank Holiday Saturday would have been double time and a day in lieu.
Sorry chaps - can't have it both ways.
I loved the irony of "We tried to get them to speed up but they refused."
So let me get this right...
People driving faster than 70 causes accidents, so we're going to impose cameras. But there was an accident caused by people driving slower than 70. Of course! It's because those noble defenders of the law and Right, the Camera Vans, stayed at home on Saturday. Strange - I would have thought a Bank Holiday Saturday would have been double time and a day in lieu.
Sorry chaps - can't have it both ways.
:BIB entire foot and most of lower leg in mouth:Love to see the accident report on this 
Of course it was down to some numpty not reacting to traffic conditions.
This was Bank Hol... lots of similar shunts up and down country.
But proves.. nicht?
It does not matter what speed - shunt happens for number of reasons und speed ist not prime cause of crash
Of course it was down to some numpty not reacting to traffic conditions.
This was Bank Hol... lots of similar shunts up and down country.
But proves.. nicht?
It does not matter what speed - shunt happens for number of reasons und speed ist not prime cause of crash
MMC said:
More of a concern is how the pro-cam press will spin it. I know EXACTLY how I'd write the story...
Were any of the Protest members in the vicinty at the time of the shunt, and able to report what happened?
It was near to junction 16 we're told, so was it the eastbound or westbound side?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff