Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera

On 23 June, 08:22, Nuxx Bar wrote:

You can make that argument with the Saudi one, but the Norfolk one is
quite another matter, as you can clearly see. *

Maybe standards have fallen, but in my day, if you'd driven like that
during
your driving test, you've have failed.

On 23 June, 09:25, Roger Thorpe
wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
You can make that argument with the Saudi one, but the Norfolk one is
quite another matter, as you can clearly see. *This is backed up by
the fact that the Norfolk "Safety" Camera Partnership (aided and
abetted by the car-hating BBC) desperately tried to stop the public
getting hold of that video once they realised what it contained (it
was taken down from the BBC website, and only got on Youtube once
someone who had taped the news programme in question came forward).

Typical of the authorities' attitude towards road safety these days:
they are perfectly happy to withhold information from the public if
they think doing so will make their cameras look less bad, no matter
what the truth of the matter is. *The dishonesty and the disregard for
people's lives is astonishing.

An excellent demonstration of one reason why speed cameras (and
detection vans) should be concealed. Would that make you happier?

--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid
slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and
hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more of
the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on motorways as
temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid the penalty for
driving too fast.

Rudi

On Jun 23, 1:48*pm, RudiL wrote:

I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid
slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and
hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more of
the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on motorways as
temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid the penalty for
driving too fast.

Yes, this makes perfect sense. It removes the only plausible safety
objection to cameras. Obviously the problem is bad drivers driving
badly and reacting inappropriately to their late perception of
something that would not concern anyway if they were driving within
the law, but let's remove even that faint possibility.

Drive as if there were a camera behind every tree and lamp-post and it
soon stops being a problem, at least in a car fitted with a
speedometer.
--
Guy

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Jun 23, 1:48Â*pm, RudiL wrote:

I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid
slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and
hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more
of the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on
motorways as temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid
the penalty for driving too fast.

Yes, this makes perfect sense. It removes the only plausible safety
objection to cameras. Obviously the problem is bad drivers driving
badly and reacting inappropriately to their late perception of
something that would not concern anyway if they were driving within
the law, but let's remove even that faint possibility.

Drive as if there were a camera behind every tree and lamp-post and it
soon stops being a problem, at least in a car fitted with a
speedometer.

Don't be silly, we already know that good drivers are incapable of
keeping below the [limit plus ten percent plus three miles per hour] or
whatever it is, because it's too difficult to judge speed without
spending a dangerous amount of time looking at the speedo. How much
more dangerous will it be if they're trying to spot concealed cameras as
they drive, when they seem to have problems seeing the bright yellow
ones at any distance?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:48 pm, RudiL wrote:

I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid
slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and
hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more of
the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on motorways as
temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid the penalty for
driving too fast.

Yes, this makes perfect sense.

Possibly, especially if you prefer conviction to compliance.

It removes the only plausible safety
objection to cameras.

You disregard the effect of over regulation, and the negative effects
that reliance on regulation brings. You also disregard the effect that
Monderman observed; that if you treat drivers like idiots they will
behave like idiots.

Obviously the problem is bad drivers driving
badly and reacting inappropriately to their late perception of
something that would not concern anyway if they were driving within
the law, but let's remove even that faint possibility.

Or even good drivers having a momentary lapse, perhaps leading to them
not being 100% sure what the current limit actually is. There is very
often no way of confirming what the current speed limit actually is.

Also there's the problem induced by over regulation - the more you
regulate, thus removing responsibility and potentially removing the
perceived need to care so much, the more frequent these lapses tend to be.

Drive as if there were a camera behind every tree and lamp-post and it
soon stops being a problem, at least in a car fitted with a
speedometer.

And assuming the speed limit is very clear, and you didn't miss the
latest, drop.

Sustainably safe roads do not require a speed limits, they need to paint
a picture.

--
Matt B

On 23 June, 14:08, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:





On Jun 23, 1:48*pm, RudiL wrote:

I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid
slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and
hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more
of the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on
motorways as temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid
the penalty for driving too fast.

Yes, this makes perfect sense. *It removes the only plausible safety
objection to cameras. *Obviously the problem is bad drivers driving
badly and reacting inappropriately to their late perception of
something that would not concern anyway if they were driving within
the law, but let's remove even that faint possibility.

Drive as if there were a camera behind every tree and lamp-post and it
soon stops being a problem, at least in a car fitted with a
speedometer.

Don't be silly, we already know that good drivers are incapable of
keeping below the [limit plus ten percent plus three miles per hour] or
whatever it is, because it's too difficult to judge speed without
spending a dangerous amount of time looking at the speedo. *How much
more dangerous will it be if they're trying to spot concealed cameras as
they drive, when they seem to have problems seeing the bright yellow
ones at any distance?

Oh of course - I forgot. Good drivers spend all their time looking for
speed cameras rather than driving within the speed limit since driving
within the limit is dangerous and kills people. Silly me (slaps
forehead)

Rudi

On Jun 23, 1:56 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:48 pm, RudiL wrote:

I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid
slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and
hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more of
the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on motorways as
temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid the penalty for
driving too fast.

Yes, this makes perfect sense.

Ah yes, the car-hater's dream. So no surprise that the car-haters are
advocating it.

In a way, it would be good to see the likes of Chapman shown to be
hypocrites (in yet another way) when they started getting speeding
tickets thanks to the wonderful hidden cameras. But I still don't
think it's worth it overall. Huge numbers of drivers would get banned
if you started randomly prosecuting a behaviour which every driver
does (sorry, Unmentionable Fact #3945 there), and while the car-haters
may want exactly that, the rest of us are enlightened enough to
realise that that would have devastating effects on *everyone*,
motorist or not.

Think the economy's bad at the moment? It would be much worse if
millions of drivers started getting needlessly banned every month.
This is the kind of thing which shows how dreadful the car-haters a
they want the motorists bullied out of their cars, and they don't care
*what* adverse results there are.

Drive as if there were a camera behind every tree and lamp-post and

....you don't drive any safer than you would have anyway, in fact you
drive less safely, putting other road users at risk. But Chapman
doesn't mind that: as long as motorists are being persecuted, it
doesn't matter if people are being killed as a result.

On Jun 23, 2:13*pm, RudiL wrote:
On 23 June, 14:08, Rob Morley wrote:



On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Jun 23, 1:48*pm, RudiL wrote:

I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid
slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and
hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more
of the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on
motorways as temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid
the penalty for driving too fast.

Yes, this makes perfect sense. *It removes the only plausible safety
objection to cameras. *Obviously the problem is bad drivers driving
badly and reacting inappropriately to their late perception of
something that would not concern anyway if they were driving within
the law, but let's remove even that faint possibility.

Drive as if there were a camera behind every tree and lamp-post and it
soon stops being a problem, at least in a car fitted with a
speedometer.

Don't be silly, we already know that good drivers are incapable of
keeping below the [limit plus ten percent plus three miles per hour] or
whatever it is, because it's too difficult to judge speed without
spending a dangerous amount of time looking at the speedo. *How much
more dangerous will it be if they're trying to spot concealed cameras as
they drive, when they seem to have problems seeing the bright yellow
ones at any distance?

Oh of course - I forgot. Good drivers spend all their time looking for
speed cameras rather than driving within the speed limit since driving
within the limit is dangerous and kills people. Silly me (slaps
forehead)

Rudi

Who'd have thought it? Simplistic car-haters using blatant straw man
tactics because they can't argue against the real anti-camera
arguments and they know it damn well? I never thought I'd see the day.

On Jun 23, 8:37*pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
"Colin Trunt" considered Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:53:50
+0100 the perfect time to write:

Sorry to piggyback, but I don't see the original.

Then don't bother with the ****wit replies at all; they are worthless
anti-car invective. The snipped nonsense is a case in point. You're
just another crazed car-hating dick who can't bear to read the posts
of anyone who says true things that you'd rather weren't the case.

"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
...
"Colin Trunt" considered Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:53:50
+0100 the perfect time to write:

Sorry to piggyback, but I don't see the original.

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
http://www.driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/281

The car-haters can say "It wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
speeding" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic excuse,
which shows yet again that the car-haters will *always* defend cameras
no matter what. The speed camera caused the accident, and no amount
of agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact.

Translates to:
The camera-haters can say "it wouldn't have happened if there hadn't
been a camera" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic
excuse, which shows yet again that the camera-haters will *always*
defend dangerous driving no matter what. The speeding and lack of
basic vehicle control caused the accident, and no amount of
agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact.



I understand the sentiment, but it is probably a fact to say none of the
accidents would have occurred if the camera hadn't been there.

The irony in the second video was clear to see. Several of the motorists
were on the phone, yet the police were there to catch people going faster
than the speed limit.

--
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi