Monday 9th September 2002

Killed Avoiding Speed Camera

---

[Captain Muppet]

Has anyone not seen a near miss at a speed camera? I can't believe these accidents aren't happening ten times a day (non-fatal anyway). The accident reports are unlikely to include the phrase "I was braking heavily to get down to the speed limit when..."

How about signs giving 300 metre/yard count down to all camera sights as a road safety measure?

If it's good enough for roundabouts...

[jeremyc]

I've always wondered why they don't paint a warning on the road ahead of the camera.

After all, they paint lines after it, and are supposed to be making them highly visible if they want to keep some of the revenue .....

[NickD]

"Obviously this is a tragic example of what could happen when people don't observe the speed limits and drive too quickly."

WHAT??? This really pi55es me off. What he so obviously fails to mention is that it would never have happened had the speed camera not been there. Does he actually think that them riding too fast was the principal cause?

[pbrettle]

The comment from the person at "Transport for London" says "this is the result of driving too fast"....errr NO - call me a numptie but had the camera not been there then they would still be alive.... So this is a DIRECT link between the camera and a death.

They do this all the time to indicate a reduction in deaths and injuries - you cant have it both ways you morons...

Shheesh - do they honestly think that we are a bunch of idiots?

Cheers,

Paul

[Gargamel]

I have driven up and down that road many many many times

10 years ago there were no traffic lights on the roundabouts, sensible pedestrian crossings before the roundabout (not as you exit) the speed limit was 50 mph rising to 70 on the motorway feeder section
and there were no cameras

Now - the traffic flow was never great in peak times - i grant you - nor on rugby days - and traffic levels have risen - but it can take an hour now to get from richmond round about to the top of the m3 - about 4.5 miles ....

I agree with the article - these guys WERE speeding plain and simple - I agree if the camrea wasn't there their would not have been a crash - BUT if they hadn't been speeding there would not have been a crash either.

But my point is - if is was safe before at 50 - why is it now unsafe ?

the other section was 70 - three lane etc - it is now 50 - no reason at all .... co incided with the camreas arriving though.

[bluesandtwos]

Absolutely defiantly an inappropriate use of speed on the biker’s part. If he had been riding at the correct speed he would not have been killed even with the camera there. That goes for the R1 he hit as well.

Anyone who says / thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

[GregC]

Sorry I disagree. If a Police Car was going down the same road would they trigger the speed camera? Would they be driving dangerously?

The issue seems to be the following biker riding without due care and attention (if the R1 had been doing 30, slammed the brakes on and the guy behind didn't the result would have been the same - bikes stop very quickly, especially R1's).

The camera was definately the trigger (could easily have been a car or pedestrian etc...) but the cause was lack of attention, not speeding.

[hertsbiker]

quote:Absolutely defiantly an inappropriate use of speed on the biker’s part.

I'm not going to break my habit of being polite to other users, but you make me beyond belief.

If the camera had been placed where it was visible to everyone, all would have seen it in plenty of time, thus avoiding the accident.

Had they been moving at 30mph, and one slammed the brakes on, it could have still caused a shunt.

Get real, cameras can kill! (push this slogan).

Carl

PS I have slid a bike up the road because of a stupidly placed camera on a wide empty road. I was not amused.

[Niggle]

Looking at the scene, www.archeus.plus.com/colin/bikes/gatsos/DSCN0288.JPG the bandit rider just wasn't paying attention.

[GregC]

Seems a typical example of a road where a camera is going to encourage bad driving - long straight, slam the brakes on, pass the camera, acelerate hard.

What exactly is the camera hoping to achieve?

The only time they work is the kind of scenario where they guard a dangerous junction, cars slow down for the camera at the junction. Motorways/straight roads - forget it they are just raising money!

[smeagol]

At the same time looking at that picture can anyone justify this having a limit of 30mph? Its clearly a dual carriageway with no houses/driveways on the left hand side. That road should be at least a 40mph limit, and 50mph would certainly be my estimate of a suitable limit. Looks like "lower the limit, put the camera, lets make lots of money". Also this road doesn't strike me as a potential accident black spot.

[s_willy]

The camera's are now the hazard. And the best way to deal with a hazard is to remove it. simple.

[CarZee]

quote:Absolutely defiantly an inappropriate use of speed on the biker’s part. If he had been riding at the correct speed he would not have been killed even with the camera there. That goes for the R1 he hit as well.

So now, if someone runs into the back of you, it's your fault if you were (a) exceeding the speed limit or (b) Braking for a camera or other (potential) hazard?

where in traffic law is this stated or inferred?

quote:Anyone who says / thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Ahh.. that catch all "my argument may be flawed, but if you disagree with me, you're wrong". Gimme a break.

[Gargamel]

smeagol

facts for you

the road is the A316 - the BRIGHT yellow camera is in clear view for 300 yards on a slightly up hill strech of road that passes Richmond college and Harlequins rugby ground. the road crests a blind rise about 100 yards further on - Where it IS NOT unusual to arrive and see two lines of SLOW moving traffic. There road is a 40mph dual carriageway NOT a 30mph

I am sorry - but this guy - sad though it is was not paying sufficeint attention and Darwin bit him in the ass - IMHO

[tsteenholdt]

There was a classic photo in the local Northants paper a few months ago: 3 slightly concertinaed cars next to a speed camera. It was quite obviously an accident that would not have occurred if the camera hadn’t been there (on a downwards slope and hidden behind a tree for maximum revenue generation). The driver of the front car had stood on the brakes when he spotted the camera and the others had piled into the back of him. There was no suggestion that the cars had even been speeding, and judging by how close to the camera they had stopped I doubt they could have been.

I with hertsbiker on this one: Cameras can kill

[smeagol]

quote:
the road is the A316 - the BRIGHT yellow camera is in clear view for 300 yards on a slightly up hill strech of road that passes Richmond college and Harlequins rugby ground. the road crests a blind rise about 100 yards further on - Where it IS NOT unusual to arrive and see two lines of SLOW moving traffic. There road is a 40mph dual carriageway NOT a 30mph

I am sorry - but this guy - sad though it is was not paying sufficeint attention and Darwin bit him in the ass - IMHO

Thanks, looking at a picture it is hard to judge the road but as you said it used to be 50mph which I believe is perfectly reasonable for that picture. Whilst I agree that clearly this biker wasn't paying attention and unfortunately it cost him his life (hey we all make mistakes!) I am not convinced that this camera is anything more than a revenue generator.

Surely a sign saying queues likely is more information than a camera. The road is a dual carriageway and has good visibility (on the photo shown). I simply don't believe that this is an accident blackspot at the location of the camera.

The photo shows little traffic showing as usual that speed limits are purely arbitary. On crouded rugby days this road I'm sure is more dangerous.

[s_willy]

quote:
I am sorry - but this guy - sad though it is was not paying sufficeint attention and Darwin bit him in the ass - IMHO

Don't you mean Newton ie laws of physics and not theory of evolution.

[bluesandtwos]

The principle cause of the crash was excess speed.

You can’t argue anything else.

What has a police car got to do with it?

If they were traveling at a slower speed then the collision would not have happened.

Why did you come off your motorcycle? Because of the camera, how is that?!! If you were traveling at the correct speed limit why did you take drastic action that lead to you ending up off the bike?

The problem that I think has been raised is 2 fold. Some users here seem to think that it is acceptable to drive / ride at any speed you see fit and speed cameras are the danger. (when it is in fact yourself that is the danger) and secondly pack riding that seems to be a growing trend is greatly increasing your chances of an accident.

I often drive in a convoy of very quick cars, the lead car will never go over 70mph, however the cars at the rear will find themselves accelerating well past 90mph to keep up with the pack due to the lag between the lead car accelerating and each subsequent car. To make things even more difficult the opposite effect can be felt when the pack slows, you will catch the convoy very quickly if you are not careful.

[GregC]

Had the guy in front fallen off I would agree but he didn't the bike behind crashed into him. Cause of the crash - the rider behind not paying attention, speed is irrelevent other that being the reason (allied closely with the camera) that the guy in front braked in the first place. I slow down all the time without people crashing into the back of me, even if I happen to be going too fast.

The police car thing is as follows - you seem to be suggesting that the guy was going dangerously fast if he was concerned about setting off the camera, police cars set off camera's all the time, does this mean they drive dangerously fast? No. It means they drive faster than the posted speed limit but within safety margins deemed acceptable due to their training. The blanket suggestion that police drivers have some god like driving ability makes no sense to me - not all of us are incapable of driving with the same thought and degree of concerntration as the police. Speed is not the problem, inappropriate speed is the issue, speed cameras completely fail to address this point - all they do is guard a 20 odd yard stretch of tarmac!

I assume from your descrption of driving in convoy you are referring to motorway driving - I too have driven on motorways several times, have on occasions exceeded 70 mph and, as I leave sufficient space between me and the car in front and as I pay attention to what I am doing seem to have got away with it up till now.

Bikes particularly have ridden in convoy for years, this in itself is not inherantly dengerous, driving anywhere without paying attention is - it is that which appears to have been the issue in this case.



>> Edited by GregC on Wednesday 11th September 15:34

[Size Nine Elm]

quote:
The principle cause of the crash was excess speed.

You can’t argue anything else.

Wanna bet?

I would hazard an opinion that the cause was riding too close - same as tailgating. If the vehicle in front brakes quickly, or you are just a touch dozy, you don't stop in time. The speed is irrelevant.

The cause of the bike in front braking was clearly the camera.

Lets take safety to task here. What is the desired outcome of a road safetly policy? Less deaths/injuries/accidents. Now are we going to live in a utopian dream whereby cameras will slow people down so they don't have accidents? If so, then I'd agree, excess speed was clearly to blame. But if you live in the real world, the camera was the prime cause of the accident, and the gap between the bikers was contributory, as was - potentially - the speed.

If you want road safety, you have to take *all* factors into consideration, including human nature, not blind political dogma. If you put up cameras, people *are* going to brake for them, so you'd better be damn sure that any safety benefit - like actually being at an accident blackspot - outweighs the danger they also create.