Scameras cause accidents ?
Discussion
Just got back from a trip to Reading.
Saw a nasty accident on the M4 West between J15 and 16. A car with a trailer facing the wrong way in lane 3 looking like it had taken 2 others with it.
What's sitting above on the bridge less than 50m behing the accident ?
You've got it...... the fiendly local 'Safety Camera Unit' on a day with good visibility and a moderate traffic volume.
This is only a guess, but these vans usually cause last minute heavy braking and we all know what that leads to if your'e towing.......
Luckily it appeared that there were no casualties. BiB looked really chuffed having to clear up the mess and I would love to have known what they really thought.
The issue of advertising hoardings in farmers fields was raised in parliament recently. They were deemed a distraction to drivers and therefore a potential hazard. Surely the same logic must apply to scamera vans ?
I'm beginning to pine for the days when there were more BiB on the M way in marked patrol cars. I'm sure driving standards were better and they were certainly more discriminating if you happened to be 10 mph over the limit.
Rant over.
Mark
Saw a nasty accident on the M4 West between J15 and 16. A car with a trailer facing the wrong way in lane 3 looking like it had taken 2 others with it.
What's sitting above on the bridge less than 50m behing the accident ?
You've got it...... the fiendly local 'Safety Camera Unit' on a day with good visibility and a moderate traffic volume.
This is only a guess, but these vans usually cause last minute heavy braking and we all know what that leads to if your'e towing.......
Luckily it appeared that there were no casualties. BiB looked really chuffed having to clear up the mess and I would love to have known what they really thought.
The issue of advertising hoardings in farmers fields was raised in parliament recently. They were deemed a distraction to drivers and therefore a potential hazard. Surely the same logic must apply to scamera vans ?
I'm beginning to pine for the days when there were more BiB on the M way in marked patrol cars. I'm sure driving standards were better and they were certainly more discriminating if you happened to be 10 mph over the limit.
Rant over.
Mark
Perhaps if the guy was driving 'properly' and hadn't panicked unnecessarily (notice how many people slow to 61 to overtake a rozzer doing 60 on a dual carriageway?) he wouldn't have crashed? Assuming, of course, that the scamera wasn't just coincidental to his accident.
You say you'd like more marked police cars instead of the scameras - well don't they park on overbridges too - what would have been the difference?
You say you'd like more marked police cars instead of the scameras - well don't they park on overbridges too - what would have been the difference?
I feel the difference is that one takes your picture from up a mile or so away and sends a bill for 60 quid and gives you points that don't win prizes. These are sent from an unregulated and technically not legal (see Ladymans latest announcement) body with equipment that is often faulty. It does all this regardless of conditions (people do 70 whilst tailing someone in the rain suffer not at all but overtake at 80 on a dry clear day with low traffic levels in a well maintained car).
Also I certainly believe that people now spend more time when driving looking for cameras and checking their speed all the time than they do concentrating on the task of driving. Cameras that are clearly signed and always loaded should be outside of schools, hospitals (obvisouly allowing for ambulances....) and areas where people know that if they drive at over the limit they will get a ticket would be acceptable to me. More police cars on the motorways that are there not to catch speeders but to catch dangerous drivers would be good (fairly sure it used to be like that!). Lastly they could improve road safety by making the test harder to pass and include high speed driving, and encourage people to stop worrying on the M5 about doing 71 mph and start thinking about the distance they leave between cars, the conditions they are driving in and the condition of their vehicle.
Just my thoughts on the matter
Andy
Also I certainly believe that people now spend more time when driving looking for cameras and checking their speed all the time than they do concentrating on the task of driving. Cameras that are clearly signed and always loaded should be outside of schools, hospitals (obvisouly allowing for ambulances....) and areas where people know that if they drive at over the limit they will get a ticket would be acceptable to me. More police cars on the motorways that are there not to catch speeders but to catch dangerous drivers would be good (fairly sure it used to be like that!). Lastly they could improve road safety by making the test harder to pass and include high speed driving, and encourage people to stop worrying on the M5 about doing 71 mph and start thinking about the distance they leave between cars, the conditions they are driving in and the condition of their vehicle.
Just my thoughts on the matter
Andy
I think that in many cases people jump on the anti speed camera bandwagon because they have points and refuse to accept they were doing anything wrong. There is certainly a legitamate complaint about the way the speed cameras are used and also in the general policing of the roads (country) if you admit that when you speed and get a ticket it is really your fault.
As for one causing and accident I think it links to the comment above, you are belting along at 90 or so and there is a van on the bridge and you don't see it until the last minute and slam your brakes on thus causing and accident... however if you are drivinng rapidly on a clear motorway then you should spot the camera because the fact that you are driving fast means you should be concentrating on whats coming up ahead, if the traffic is busy and you are doing 90 (its another disscussion about whether you should be!) then you should be concentrating entirely on the surrounding traffic and the first thing you know about that camera is 2 weeks later when the ticket arrives! cameras on bridges tucked out of the way cause accidents only when people are watching the bridges and worrying about 60 quid and decide that slamming the brakes on is a good idea instead of paying attention to their driving.
Andy
As for one causing and accident I think it links to the comment above, you are belting along at 90 or so and there is a van on the bridge and you don't see it until the last minute and slam your brakes on thus causing and accident... however if you are drivinng rapidly on a clear motorway then you should spot the camera because the fact that you are driving fast means you should be concentrating on whats coming up ahead, if the traffic is busy and you are doing 90 (its another disscussion about whether you should be!) then you should be concentrating entirely on the surrounding traffic and the first thing you know about that camera is 2 weeks later when the ticket arrives! cameras on bridges tucked out of the way cause accidents only when people are watching the bridges and worrying about 60 quid and decide that slamming the brakes on is a good idea instead of paying attention to their driving.
Andy
Antony Moxey said:
Indeed Andy, especially your last point. I couldn't agree more. I do have trouble believing that a talivan can be 'blamed' for an accident though.
How can you have trouble believing that, do you not do many journeys on the M4?
Believe me, the bstard talivans cause serious problems and will no doubt cause a major pile-up sooner than later.
I'm talking from experience as I see them every week. Nicely flowing motorway then suddenly brake lights and erratic braking, all for the artificial hazzard sitting on a bridge. Then all speed up again and back to normal. The talivan idiots call this safety! Idiots!
It's all very well to say drivers should be concentrating and spot the talivan in good time, but it's a natural reaction to hit the brake pedal on sight even if you're only doing say 85. The motorway will usually have a natural flow of around 80-85-90 mph, so all these drivers are then hitting the brakes.
Ofcourse, some would say drivers shouldn't be exceeding 70 anyway.
But to hold that opinion one would have to be extremely ignorant of real life motorway driving.
Happy Snapper had this happen to him on the M4 just before Christmas. Suddenly all the traffic in front of him locked up and swerved left causing all sorts of mayhem - the reason? Talivan on the bridge again.
He was driving at just over the speed limit (had 80+ year old mother in the car) but the absolute chaos caused by the numpties locking up and swerving was apperently incredibly scarey.
He was driving at just over the speed limit (had 80+ year old mother in the car) but the absolute chaos caused by the numpties locking up and swerving was apperently incredibly scarey.
deeps said:
Antony Moxey said:Indeed Andy, especially your last point. I couldn't agree more. I do have trouble believing that a talivan can be 'blamed' for an accident though.
How can you have trouble believing that, do you not do many journeys on the M4?
I'm talking from experience as I see them every week. Nicely flowing motorway then suddenly brake lights and erratic braking, all for the artificial hazzard sitting on a bridge. Then all speed up again and back to normal. The talivan idiots call this safety! Idiots!
That's why it isn't the Talivan's fault. You yourself say 'erratic braking'. That's the fault of the drivers, many of whom, and no doubt you'll have seen this yourself, see the van and slam on their brakes despite only doing 71 in the first place. Same as people who drive past a police car on the motorway at 61 when the rozzer's doing 60. However you want to dress it up, that's bad driving.
Antony Moxey said:
Antony Moxey said:Indeed Andy, especially your last point. I couldn't agree more. I do have trouble believing that a talivan can be 'blamed' for an accident though.
How can you have trouble believing that, do you not do many journeys on the M4?
I'm talking from experience as I see them every week. Nicely flowing motorway then suddenly brake lights and erratic braking, all for the artificial hazzard sitting on a bridge. Then all speed up again and back to normal. The talivan idiots call this safety! Idiots!
That's why it isn't the Talivan's fault. You yourself say 'erratic braking'. That's the fault of the drivers, many of whom, and no doubt you'll have seen this yourself, see the van and slam on their brakes despite only doing 71 in the first place. Same as people who drive past a police car on the motorway at 61 when the rozzer's doing 60. However you want to dress it up, that's bad driving.
But surely (I know, I know don't call me shirley...) it's another example of why the current road safety policy that is so reliant on cameras doesn't work??
We don't train drivers to drive on motorways, three quarters of them drive like tossers - add a camera van into the mix and you get chaos and surely that's what road safety policy is supposed to stop?
Surely we should be watching the road & it's hazards! not for bloody vans on bridges.
If the guy with the trailer saw "no hazards" further ahead in the roadway then he would'nt expect the cars in front to brake excessively for no apparent reason & potentially cause an accident. The fact that people are looking for "hazards" 30m up in thea air indicates they are not entirely conecentrating on their driving.
If the guy with the trailer saw "no hazards" further ahead in the roadway then he would'nt expect the cars in front to brake excessively for no apparent reason & potentially cause an accident. The fact that people are looking for "hazards" 30m up in thea air indicates they are not entirely conecentrating on their driving.
Clearly the van cannot be blamed for the accident directly, crap driving causes accidents. But... I think there is a lot of truth in the theory that rather than concentrating on hazards, people are automatically taking their eyes off the road to look at every bridge and "regular haunt" of the SCP vans.
Antony Moxey said:
That's why it isn't the Talivan's fault. You yourself say 'erratic braking'. That's the fault of the drivers, many of whom, and no doubt you'll have seen this yourself, see the van and slam on their brakes despite only doing 71 in the first place.
If the van wasn't there would they still slam on the brakes at 71? No! Yes we know they shouldn't, but they always will!
There's no getting away from the fact that drivers will brake on sighting a bridge talivan. How that improves safety on a motorway is beyond me.
Totally agree with Deeps and others on this : whilst the Talivan isn't exactly the direct cause, it is without any doubt a contributory factor in that it is considered a hazard by most motorists and will cause an automatic reaction from many. OK, it's bad driving to brake hard when not even speeding - Jeez, bad driving on our roads seems to be the norm nowadays. It's also bad driving to hog lane 2, leave foglights on in good conditions, and tailgate cars in front - but plenty of morons do it. Recently there was publicity, around Somerset if not nationally, about advertising boards placed on trailers in fields next to the M5 - the authorities considered them an unnecessary hazard that cause distraction, and want them removed. But do they say the same about Talivans ? Of course they don't, even though they are far more of a danger to a motorist. If they really care about road safety, they would want to remove anything that may cause an adverse reaction and hence an accident, especially on a motorway, but they don't because the vans make money - end of story. A Talivan on a motorway is sat way up in the air FFS, and is only a hazard because it's got a camera. I'd prefer to concentrate solely on the actual road hazards, but SCP's are determined to place ever more stealthy hazards on the roads as well - and that is not road safety at it's best whichever way you look at it.
Yes, yes, and that's a ridiculous argument. If the guy in front didn't suddenly have a blow-out on his caravan causing it to swerve and cause an accident then other motorists wouldn't have to suddenly brake either, so let's ban caravans too...
....err, hang on, we do want to do that don't we...
Anyway, Talivans. They're just part and parcel of traffic and if everyone anchors up then that is simply bad driving on their part and merely highlights a lack of observational skills on the part of the errant braker. People just need to learn to drive!!!
....err, hang on, we do want to do that don't we...
Anyway, Talivans. They're just part and parcel of traffic and if everyone anchors up then that is simply bad driving on their part and merely highlights a lack of observational skills on the part of the errant braker. People just need to learn to drive!!!
Antony Moxey said:
Yes, yes, and that's a ridiculous argument. If the guy in front didn't suddenly have a blow-out on his caravan causing it to swerve and cause an accident then other motorists wouldn't have to suddenly brake either, so let's ban caravans too...
....err, hang on, we do want to do that don't we...
Anyway, Talivans. They're just part and parcel of traffic and if everyone anchors up then that is simply bad driving on their part and merely highlights a lack of observational skills on the part of the errant braker. People just need to learn to drive!!!
Yellovette summed it up above, but you don't want to listen.
A blow-out (caravan is irrelevent) from a vehicle is a real hazzard which may cause traffic to brake whereas a talivan is a man-made hazzard, can you not see the difference?
Can I ask you, if you were exceeding the speed limit at about 85 and spotted a sneaky talivan hiding way down the side of a m-way bridge, would you still not brake?
You seem to hold the veiw that because some drivers may not be clued up on talivans and may spot them too late, that this exonerates all blame from the talivan when the consequent braking leads to a pile-up. Whether you're right or wrong, the fact remains that the pile-up wouldn't have happened if the talivan wasn't there.
deeps said:
Yellovette summed it up above, but you don't want to listen.
A blow-out (caravan is irrelevent) from a vehicle is a real hazzard which may cause traffic to brake whereas a talivan is a man-made hazzard, can you not see the difference?
Can I ask you, if you were exceeding the speed limit at about 85 and spotted a sneaky talivan hiding way down the side of a m-way bridge, would you still not brake?
You seem to hold the veiw that because some drivers may not be clued up on talivans and may spot them too late, that this exonerates all blame from the talivan when the consequent braking leads to a pile-up. Whether you're right or wrong, the fact remains that the pile-up wouldn't have happened if the talivan wasn't there.
Hear Hear. This kind of 'distraction' to drivers is contributing to the 'driver info overload' & compounding problems already faced on our overcrowded systems.
www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=13181
If I was exceeding the limit that much, I most certainly wouldn't slam on my brakes as many seem to do - I'd try to slow down, but were I to get nabbed then so be it, better a couple of quid and a couple of points than twenty cars shunting behind me. But it's a false argument saying if the van wasn't there it wouldn't cause an accident. If there were no traffic whatsoever and the motorway was a sealed tube that only you could drive on then there wouldn't be any accidents so should everything get banned?
Talivans, scameras, plain clothed rozzers up and down the motorway are part of everyday driving these days, and just one more thing to be aware of along with MMMs, lorries who think that just because they've indicated that they have the right to veer across infront of you immediately, caravans and trailers wobbling along at 80mph and everything else besides.
I still maintain that it's bad driving and bad awareness and observation that causes such accidents, not the Talivan.
Talivans, scameras, plain clothed rozzers up and down the motorway are part of everyday driving these days, and just one more thing to be aware of along with MMMs, lorries who think that just because they've indicated that they have the right to veer across infront of you immediately, caravans and trailers wobbling along at 80mph and everything else besides.
I still maintain that it's bad driving and bad awareness and observation that causes such accidents, not the Talivan.
Antony Moxey said:
I still maintain that it's bad driving and bad awareness and observation that causes such accidents, not the Talivan.
Given that the bad drving already exists, surely it would be better to allow for this by not putting scamera vans on motorways? Educate in the mean time, but given the knowledge that the standard of driving is as it is, then why do something that provokes an unsafe reaction? If everyone was as good as you would like them to be then there may not be a problem. Unfortunatley, they are not.
Gassing Station | South West | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff