scamera van caused near miss/accident

alastairq

Wig wrote: »

I refer you to post #56

Anyone who goes past a speed camera at or 1, 2, 3 or 4 mph under (or over obviously) the speed limit is an idiot in my book.

'Over' I can understand......


'At' or 'under' why the need to reduce further?

oh.

because some website/organisation has apparently discovered that some SCP's or Police use systems which may conceivably produce an erroneous reading?

All of which is quite simply countered by a 'not guilty' plea, some evidence gathering...and the ability to cast 'reasonable doubt' over what eh CPS claim?


Since the majority of vehicle speedos actually read a bit higher than actual speed.....why not rely on one's vehicle speedo rather than guessing a '10%' or so?

Nilrem

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But by your own admission they exist, yes?. Therefore you have to consider that type of driver as a hazard, rubbish by your definition or otherwise.

Some drivers will hit the brakes in panic at the sight of a speed camera or police car. They may be 1/2 asleep but they are very real and anyone who doesn't realise that has their head in the clouds too.;)

In that case, I'd actually like the police to actively go after the idiots - fit a video camera alongside the speed cameras, and randomly go through them and start to prosecute for careless/dangerous driving for people that slam on the brakes.

If people can't drive safely and lets face it a speed camera is not a danger, or something that should worry the drivers compared to other much more serious and common potential dangers on/by the road, they shouldn't be driving.

If people consider the speed cameras a risk, god knows what they'll think of dogs/children/cyclists/wildlife which are much more of a danger.

Of all the arguments against speed cameras the "but it causes people to act dangerously to slow down" one is about the weakest, as anyone driving to a minimum standard (as per passing the driving test) shouldn't be having those problems.

alastairq

as anyone driving to a minimum standard (as per passing the driving test)

I would challenge that statement, on the grounds that, when meeting the required standard to pass a test, the driver is displaying a level of competence far from the minimum.

[in educational terms, 'consciously competent?']

It is subsequent to attaining one's licence that the 'standard...or level of competence falls.

[[evidence? The number of drivers who have licences, yet appear in Court ...and are guilty of, driving without due care.?}]

Regarding Police pursuing drivers who slow apparently unnecessarily?

Although 'speed cameras' are effective enforcement of legal speed limits.....thus freeing up the traffic police to pursue other law breakers....there is still an issue of under-manning of police on the roads...there still are insufficient numbers compared to the volume of traffic out there.

Strider590

Here's a thought......

You know how you never see the Talivan's parked near schools? or on single lane 30/40mph limited roads? or when it's raining/foggy/cold?

Perhaps they only man roads where there's no likelihood of hazards (like big wide open dual carriageways)? Because they know a driver could cause a collision if their attention is focused on the little stripey van instead of the road?

FATBALLZ

Nilrem wrote: »

Of all the arguments against speed cameras the "but it causes people to act dangerously to slow down" one is about the weakest, as anyone driving to a minimum standard (as per passing the driving test) shouldn't be having those problems.

Ok, so because these people *shouldn't* be driving 'badly', it's therefore fine to provoke them into driving even worse?

I might suggest that my employer floods the offices with poison gas at night, as since nobody should be going in there at that time, nobody should have a problem with it.

telboyo

Wig wrote: »

Well I know I did, even though I was doing 50 I immediately pressed the anchors, as I did so I glanced at the speedo (51mph). The first thing I do is press the brakes I can check my speed after I do that, this saves time and can be the difference between a ticket and no ticket. Brake now ask qu's later.

This can then have a knock on effect with a people behind braking and eventually someone behind being unable to stop in time. So innocent drivers who are not speeding end up getting hit from behind, all because of a poorly positioned scamera (assuming there is such a thing as a well positioned scamera).

!!!!!! did you feel the need to put your brakes on? I bet you are the sort of person that drives on the motorway and feels the need brake every 3 sevconds cos you are up the !!!! of the car in front.

Strider590

telboyo wrote: »

!!!!!! did you feel the need to put your brakes on? I bet you are the sort of person that drives on the motorway and feels the need brake every 3 sevconds cos you are up the !!!! of the car in front.

Sorry.... But almost everyone touches the brakes when they see the Talivan, it's natural instinct!

I don't brake, but my foot moves the brakes and this is enough to light up the brake lights.... This then causes all the cars behind to brake with increasing pressure until eventually someone has to come to a stop.
It's exactly what happens on motorways every single day, car number 1 lights up the brake lights, 10 minutes later there's a 2 mile 150 car queue of traffic and no reason at all for it!

Wig

telboyo wrote: »

!!!!!! did you feel the need to put your brakes on? I bet you are the sort of person that drives on the motorway and feels the need brake every 3 sevconds cos you are up the !!!! of the car in front.

Read the thread Sherlock.

Wig

alastairq wrote: »

All of which is quite simply countered by a 'not guilty' plea, some evidence gathering...and the ability to cast 'reasonable doubt' over what eh CPS claim?

Famous last words "quite simple"

Simple to take time off work and devote your self to evidence gathering, the legal arguments and processes involved. Then when you are in court you are faced with evidence and statements from experts extolling how accurate their machinery is. and you are there alone trying to persuade a magistrate that the equipment is either faulty, has been incorrectly used or calibrated wrongly, with very little evidence to support your argument. The mags will very likely go with the authorities leaving you the joyful option of appealing. Lose a days pay to defend yourself against a £60 fine and 3 points?

You do what you want to do, and good luck with it when all goes wrong for you. I think those three catagories of people are idiots. I will always brake and go slow past a speed camera. I never want to have the hassle of having to defend myself against them.

cyclonebri1

Strider590 wrote: »

Here's a thought......

You know how you never see the Talivan's parked near schools? or on single lane 30/40mph limited roads? or when it's raining/foggy/cold?

Perhaps they only man roads where there's no likelihood of hazards (like big wide open dual carriageways)? Because they know a driver could cause a collision if their attention is focused on the little stripey van instead of the road?

I can tell you the answer to that and it's simple:

Everyone knows the Highway Code and all other motoring laws do not apply at or near schools or anywhere in the vacinity at school run times;);), ask any school run mum or dad.
If you are late to pick up junior just drive faster and park on the crossing zigzags outside school, you'll only be there for a minute, last in 1st out and all that, :eek::eek::eek:

Yes this does bug me:mad: