Whos fault is it? (Could be yours)
Discussion
Ive read a few posts on here recently about the Police and 'Talivans' causing or nearly causing Accidents.
My reply is therefore going to 'stir' up a hornets nest but here goes.
For arguments sake,if youre doing 90mph on a dual carriageway and all of a sudden you see a Talivan parked up or a Trafpol using a Prolaser etc and either you or the person in front brakes sharply and nearly loses control or loses control and stacks their car or bike........how can it possibly be the fault of the Police?
Even if youre doing the speed limit i cant see how it changes anything.
If someone chooses to exceed the speed limit surely its down to the person, if they are caught then the blame rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the driver, unless of course theres someone sitting beside them with a gun to their head.
If im doing 90 or more on a dual carriageway and i see a speed trap of any sort ahead, i would like to think that im alert enough to know what speed i was doing, what my road position would be and who was around me....i would be very worried if i didnt.
However, someone driving along in the same example, not concentrating, thumb up bum scenario (typically rush hour going home mode, whats for tea etc etc), when they see the speed trap they brake, not knopwing what or who is behind them and as a result they lock up cause an Accident then the blame rests with then, no ifs or buts.
I was driving home from work this afternoon north on the A1. I was in lane 1 and a car overtook me. Sometime later, i was doing 65mph, this other car was doing the same speed in lane 2. In the distance i could see a speed camera which i know monitors the speed in the opposite direction and it is sited on the central res.
The driver of the other car locks up on approach for no reason other than hes just noticed the speed camera, didnt know what speed he was doing and had no regard for the vehicle following.
He was basically driving as i have explained at the begining of my post.
It beggers belief that some people on here would say that its the speed camera that nearly caused this Accident and not the fact that the other driver was obviously driving without Due Care and Attention at the very least. (Next time it might not be a camera, but a pedestrian etc etc)
Its a fact that there are rules....some are undoubtadly an ass, but if you choose to break them then theres no point in whinging.
This applies to everyone, me included.
The reason for this post is just to try and get some sense of 'normality' and try to put some things into context.
My reply is therefore going to 'stir' up a hornets nest but here goes.
For arguments sake,if youre doing 90mph on a dual carriageway and all of a sudden you see a Talivan parked up or a Trafpol using a Prolaser etc and either you or the person in front brakes sharply and nearly loses control or loses control and stacks their car or bike........how can it possibly be the fault of the Police?
Even if youre doing the speed limit i cant see how it changes anything.
If someone chooses to exceed the speed limit surely its down to the person, if they are caught then the blame rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the driver, unless of course theres someone sitting beside them with a gun to their head.
If im doing 90 or more on a dual carriageway and i see a speed trap of any sort ahead, i would like to think that im alert enough to know what speed i was doing, what my road position would be and who was around me....i would be very worried if i didnt.
However, someone driving along in the same example, not concentrating, thumb up bum scenario (typically rush hour going home mode, whats for tea etc etc), when they see the speed trap they brake, not knopwing what or who is behind them and as a result they lock up cause an Accident then the blame rests with then, no ifs or buts.
I was driving home from work this afternoon north on the A1. I was in lane 1 and a car overtook me. Sometime later, i was doing 65mph, this other car was doing the same speed in lane 2. In the distance i could see a speed camera which i know monitors the speed in the opposite direction and it is sited on the central res.
The driver of the other car locks up on approach for no reason other than hes just noticed the speed camera, didnt know what speed he was doing and had no regard for the vehicle following.
He was basically driving as i have explained at the begining of my post.
It beggers belief that some people on here would say that its the speed camera that nearly caused this Accident and not the fact that the other driver was obviously driving without Due Care and Attention at the very least. (Next time it might not be a camera, but a pedestrian etc etc)
Its a fact that there are rules....some are undoubtadly an ass, but if you choose to break them then theres no point in whinging.
This applies to everyone, me included.
The reason for this post is just to try and get some sense of 'normality' and try to put some things into context.
Hello TonyRec
Completely agree.
If you don't mind, I'd like to do a little test. not just for yourself but for anyone on here. It's purely for fun, but I'd be interested to know the answers we get.
Fictional scenario.
You have been posted to the RAF during a conflict. The scenior officer has put you in charge of allocating and fitting armour to aircraft. Due to the weight of the armour you can only attach it to one area of the aircraft. You therefore order a rece of all the aircraft in your remit.
The results come back and you find that..
the tailfins of all the planes are riddled with bullets,
none of the planes have bullets around the fuselage,
some of the planes have bullets in the wings
and most of the planes have bullets in the cockpit area.
Where would you order the armour to be fitted?
Completely agree.
If you don't mind, I'd like to do a little test. not just for yourself but for anyone on here. It's purely for fun, but I'd be interested to know the answers we get.
Fictional scenario.
You have been posted to the RAF during a conflict. The scenior officer has put you in charge of allocating and fitting armour to aircraft. Due to the weight of the armour you can only attach it to one area of the aircraft. You therefore order a rece of all the aircraft in your remit.
The results come back and you find that..
the tailfins of all the planes are riddled with bullets,
none of the planes have bullets around the fuselage,
some of the planes have bullets in the wings
and most of the planes have bullets in the cockpit area.
Where would you order the armour to be fitted?
tony - I agree to an extent, BUT many people, myself included will be on the brakes as soon as we see a talivan/marked car/something which resembles either of them.
If someone is heading towards any of the above, they would rather be safe than sorry. The split second it takes to glance at your speed (to be safe) might mean a £60 ticket, the loss of your license, the loss of your job.
I don't especially blame people who put the anchors on at the first sight of "trouble".
If someone is heading towards any of the above, they would rather be safe than sorry. The split second it takes to glance at your speed (to be safe) might mean a £60 ticket, the loss of your license, the loss of your job.
I don't especially blame people who put the anchors on at the first sight of "trouble".
Agree-mostly- when travelling freely I'm not always sure of the exact speed I'm doing and tend to reflexly brake when I see a speed camera at the same time check my speed. I travel at what I consider to be a safe speed NOT to an arbitarily set (or lowered) limit.
As an aside I also find myself travelling through speed cameras at below the posted limit just to be safe even though my speedo reads over by 10%.
This is due to the paranoia created by cameras.
As an aside I also find myself travelling through speed cameras at below the posted limit just to be safe even though my speedo reads over by 10%.
This is due to the paranoia created by cameras.
voyds9 said:
Agree-mostly- when travelling freely I'm not always sure of the exact speed I'm doing and tend to reflexly brake when I see a speed camera at the same time check my speed. I travel at what I consider to be a safe speed NOT to an arbitarily set (or lowered) limit.
As an aside I also find myself travelling through speed cameras at below the posted limit just to be safe even though my speedo reads over by 10%.
This is due to the paranoia created by cameras.
Exactly, all of the 30mph GATSOs I pass every day, all the traffic is doing an indicated 25mph and just speed up again afterwards.
It's a reflex action, it provokes the same kind of reaction as someone stepping out into the road. Now instead of looking for hazards, 50% of my vision is looking for cameras.
You better give up driving mate - you're not safe to be on the roads - my granny's 99 and she's got better eyesight than that 
So, you're driving along a fast, safe dual carriageway which you are "sure" has a 50mph limit.
And you see a speed camera.
Do you automatically assume:
a) They've derestricted the road, but have put in the camera to catch anyone taking the p!ss.
b) They haven't changed the limit, and are policing the existing limit.
c) They have reduced the limit and put in a scamera.
And you desperately check your speedo.
Search ahead and behind for a missed sign.
And try to reduce as much speed as you can in case it's now a 30?
And fail to swerve and miss a child that ran out right in front of you as you looked at your speedo?
And you see a speed camera.
Do you automatically assume:
a) They've derestricted the road, but have put in the camera to catch anyone taking the p!ss.
b) They haven't changed the limit, and are policing the existing limit.
c) They have reduced the limit and put in a scamera.
And you desperately check your speedo.
Search ahead and behind for a missed sign.
And try to reduce as much speed as you can in case it's now a 30?
And fail to swerve and miss a child that ran out right in front of you as you looked at your speedo?
tonyrec said:
Ive read a few posts on here recently about the Police and 'Talivans' causing or nearly causing Accidents.
My reply is therefore going to 'stir' up a hornets nest but here goes.
For arguments sake,if youre doing 90mph on a dual carriageway and all of a sudden you see a Talivan parked up or a Trafpol using a Prolaser etc and either you or the person in front brakes sharply and nearly loses control or loses control and stacks their car or bike........how can it possibly be the fault of the Police?
Even if youre doing the speed limit i cant see how it changes anything.
If someone chooses to exceed the speed limit surely its down to the person, if they are caught then the blame rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the driver, unless of course theres someone sitting beside them with a gun to their head.
If im doing 90 or more on a dual carriageway and i see a speed trap of any sort ahead, i would like to think that im alert enough to know what speed i was doing, what my road position would be and who was around me....i would be very worried if i didnt.
However, someone driving along in the same example, not concentrating, thumb up bum scenario (typically rush hour going home mode, whats for tea etc etc), when they see the speed trap they brake, not knopwing what or who is behind them and as a result they lock up cause an Accident then the blame rests with then, no ifs or buts.
I was driving home from work this afternoon north on the A1. I was in lane 1 and a car overtook me. Sometime later, i was doing 65mph, this other car was doing the same speed in lane 2. In the distance i could see a speed camera which i know monitors the speed in the opposite direction and it is sited on the central res.
The driver of the other car locks up on approach for no reason other than hes just noticed the speed camera, didnt know what speed he was doing and had no regard for the vehicle following.
He was basically driving as i have explained at the begining of my post.
It beggers belief that some people on here would say that its the speed camera that nearly caused this Accident and not the fact that the other driver was obviously driving without Due Care and Attention at the very least. (Next time it might not be a camera, but a pedestrian etc etc)
Its a fact that there are rules....some are undoubtadly an ass, but if you choose to break them then theres no point in whinging.
This applies to everyone, me included.
The reason for this post is just to try and get some sense of 'normality' and try to put some things into context.
you mite have a point if the partnerships want so good a hidding so they aint seen to the last second.
bogush said:
So, you're driving along a fast, safe dual carriageway which you are "sure" has a 50mph limit.
And you see a speed camera.
Do you automatically assume:
a) They've derestricted the road, but have put in the camera to catch anyone taking the p!ss.
b) They haven't changed the limit, and are policing the existing limit.
c) They have reduced the limit and put in a scamera.
And you desperately check your speedo.
Search ahead and behind for a missed sign.
And try to reduce as much speed as you can in case it's now a 30?
And fail to swerve and miss a child that ran out right in front of you as you looked at your speedo?
well said
no way of knowing now they make up the rules as they go along.
So let's assume you are going at the prescribed legal limit, and the conditions are good. So, not doing anything wrong other than daring to drive a private motor vehicle.
An engine falls off a 747, and lands right in front of you. Bang. You brake, but still hit it.
This is a hazard, rather like a sneaky barsteward camera van coming into sight.
So then...... is this a "speed related" accident? surely, other tha the vertical velocity of the plane engine the fault cannot be with the driver.
The point I'm making is that Cameras cause accidents.
You're a copper, even though you post here, you are still on the other side. no offense meant, but when I'm out there, it's *you* I am looking out for, and YOU who I do not wish to talk to 
. And YOUR cameras that I hate so much. Sorry to be blunt, but all this PC bull about cameras being a good thing(tm) is so much cack. They cause accidents, end of story.
C
An engine falls off a 747, and lands right in front of you. Bang. You brake, but still hit it.
This is a hazard, rather like a sneaky barsteward camera van coming into sight.
So then...... is this a "speed related" accident? surely, other tha the vertical velocity of the plane engine the fault cannot be with the driver.
The point I'm making is that Cameras cause accidents.
You're a copper, even though you post here, you are still on the other side.
no offense meant, but when I'm out there, it's *you* I am looking out for, and YOU who I do not wish to talk to . And YOUR cameras that I hate so much. Sorry to be blunt, but all this PC bull about cameras being a good thing(tm) is so much cack. They cause accidents, end of story. C
But what about the people (like the old guy i saw today that nearly killed himself) who ARE doing the speed limit (or just below) but are so mind numbingly incompetant that when they see a camera or a van, they panic and slam on the anchors.
Old dude today doing 65 on a 70 NSL duel slammed on his brakes for a camera and the lorry following nearly ended his life for him. Luckily the lorry driver was far enough back to prevent it.
Had the camerea not been there (on a straight duel level road with no turnoffs or ons for several miles) would anything have happened??
Old dude today doing 65 on a 70 NSL duel slammed on his brakes for a camera and the lorry following nearly ended his life for him. Luckily the lorry driver was far enough back to prevent it.
Had the camerea not been there (on a straight duel level road with no turnoffs or ons for several miles) would anything have happened??
Tonyrec,
I think you haven't thought this through.
ANYTHING which causes a vehicle to reduce speed sharply, for no apparent reason IS, de facto, a hazard. If, as a result of that hazard, an accident occurs, then the hazard IS the proximate cause. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the vehicle was travelling below, at or above the speed limit at the time.
Yes, you can argue that ALL vehicles SHOULD adhere to speed limits but the FACT is they don't. Sometimes that speeding may represent a safety issue, sometimes not.
A fixed or mobile camera which is visible from a considerable distance should not, in all probability, represent such a hazard. A camera which is sited close to the exit of a bend IS such a hazard and could be the direct cause of an accident.
I think you haven't thought this through.
ANYTHING which causes a vehicle to reduce speed sharply, for no apparent reason IS, de facto, a hazard. If, as a result of that hazard, an accident occurs, then the hazard IS the proximate cause. It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether the vehicle was travelling below, at or above the speed limit at the time.
Yes, you can argue that ALL vehicles SHOULD adhere to speed limits but the FACT is they don't. Sometimes that speeding may represent a safety issue, sometimes not.
A fixed or mobile camera which is visible from a considerable distance should not, in all probability, represent such a hazard. A camera which is sited close to the exit of a bend IS such a hazard and could be the direct cause of an accident.
I can understand what you are saying tonyrec but believe the situation would be greatly improved if scameras and talivans had a large sign displaying the speed limit on them.
I was in an area I hadnt been to lately and was approaching a speed camera. There were no speed limit signs around and I was doing forty (which felt correct). However I slowed to 28 just in case.
I even went back to look and didnt find a speed limit sign for miles.
If speed cameras are designed to slow cars down why not warn people of the speed limit on the speed camera. Anyone caught speeding through it then surely cant complain they didnt know.
In Sydney, Australia scamaeras actually have warning signs
" 50 KM/H....SPEED CAMERA 200 METERS AHEAD"
Unsurprisingly noone speeds through that section of road. Surely thats the safest way to do it.
I was in an area I hadnt been to lately and was approaching a speed camera. There were no speed limit signs around and I was doing forty (which felt correct). However I slowed to 28 just in case.
I even went back to look and didnt find a speed limit sign for miles.
If speed cameras are designed to slow cars down why not warn people of the speed limit on the speed camera. Anyone caught speeding through it then surely cant complain they didnt know.
In Sydney, Australia scamaeras actually have warning signs
" 50 KM/H....SPEED CAMERA 200 METERS AHEAD"
Unsurprisingly noone speeds through that section of road. Surely thats the safest way to do it.
No offence but thats exactly the sort of attitude im talking about!hertsbiker said:
You're a copper, even though you post here, you are still on the other side.
C
Not my cameras.....dont agree with them but what i do hate is people who cant 'kin drive and blame the easy target for their own poor standard of driving.
Dont get me wrong, i do post on here but i do like catching bad drivers and that includes piss takers with the speed who think that they own the road, dont obey the rules and whinge like a scolded cat when they do eventually get caught.
If the speed limits on roads were appropriate and in particular, abnormally low limits not set on perfectly clear, straight sections of road, then you might have a point.
With the limits where they are, the cameras usually hidden or disguised in some way, then accidents will be causeed by the scameras.
Incidentally, it should be the fault of the car behind for not leaving enough room to stop if needed, not the driver just trying to keep his license and see his kids before they go to bed.
I can't believe you've posted this Tony.
With the limits where they are, the cameras usually hidden or disguised in some way, then accidents will be causeed by the scameras.
Incidentally, it should be the fault of the car behind for not leaving enough room to stop if needed, not the driver just trying to keep his license and see his kids before they go to bed.
I can't believe you've posted this Tony.
Given Day
10 numpties driving home, all in 'rush hour get me home mode'
No cameras no talivans, 9 times out of 10 all of them get home 'without incident'
Stick a talivan / camera on the same road, those numtpies suddenly become lethal..
Granted, they are just as numptyish as they were without the talivans, but then, they were an unloaded gun..
The talivans just loaded them.
You take the talivans away, the numpties will still be there, granted, BUT. Critically, there will be FAR FAR less chance of them 'going off'
Sure, they may still rear end the driver in front who stops for a Cat... BUT that happens FAR FAR less than a Scamera being on the road.
Is it a perfect situation, hell no, BUT its a safer situation.
Granted the perfect situation would be better, more attentive drivers, but thats just not going to happen, given how life ACTUALLY plays out..
so, we can safely say, that the talivans, whilst not the CAUSE of accidents, are 100% a catalyst.
Remove them, and you will substantially remove numpties jumping on their brakes unexpectedly.
Of that, you cant disagree.
10 numpties driving home, all in 'rush hour get me home mode'
No cameras no talivans, 9 times out of 10 all of them get home 'without incident'
Stick a talivan / camera on the same road, those numtpies suddenly become lethal..
Granted, they are just as numptyish as they were without the talivans, but then, they were an unloaded gun..
The talivans just loaded them.
You take the talivans away, the numpties will still be there, granted, BUT. Critically, there will be FAR FAR less chance of them 'going off'
Sure, they may still rear end the driver in front who stops for a Cat... BUT that happens FAR FAR less than a Scamera being on the road.
Is it a perfect situation, hell no, BUT its a safer situation.
Granted the perfect situation would be better, more attentive drivers, but thats just not going to happen, given how life ACTUALLY plays out..
so, we can safely say, that the talivans, whilst not the CAUSE of accidents, are 100% a catalyst.
Remove them, and you will substantially remove numpties jumping on their brakes unexpectedly.
Of that, you cant disagree.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff