AndyBaker

A52 coming out of Grantham, everyone tootling along at 60 (speed limit) and the guy at the front of the queue sees the camera slaps his anchors on and 3 car shunt. So the camera that's supposed to stop accidents was pretty much the cause (except for the dick who stepped on the brakes).

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

First off .. you're going to get

Why were you speeding, followed closely by .. well actually that's the second one .. why so close ..

AndyBaker

I wasn't involved I was about 300 metres back just enjoying the show

AndyBaker

I was merely pointing out that something that is supposed to stop accidents was instrumental in it happening

Leslie

You are actually expected to be able to stop should a problem occur in front of you. If you cannot stop when someone applies his brakes, it is your fault!

Les

AndyBaker

pimmo where did you get the idea I was speeding?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I can see his point and have almost been caught out by idiots doing the same.

It's no joke on a busy road like the A1 at 70mph........

Felix.

so if he had to hit the anchors the, he was going to fast - i cant see how it was the fault of the speed camera

Thats like saying "I saw the traffic lights change to red, so i put my foot down to get through and i hit another car - so its the fault of the traffic light"

nik52wrx

I've been behind cars in the past who have been travelling within the speed limit and still brake before the cameras.

Nik.

Ant

The one just after going over the a1?

What a pleb you can see that camera a mile off .

Ant

The one just after going over the a1?

What a pleb you can see that camera a mile off .

AndyBaker

I'm glad somebody gets it, nobody was speeding its like its a natural reaction "see a camera slow down quick". I totally agree people shouldn't drive too close, my point is if that camera wasnt there the accident wouldn't have happened

Camsedin

its natural to hit your brakes when you see a camera.. but i highly doubt anyone would put the anchors down fully if they where not hammering it?

to put on the anchors full. means you want to slow your car down by a lot and do it fast. why would you do that unless you are a good bit above the limit? lol

AndyBaker

Sorry, have to disagree I was there!!!

Camsedin

he/she was just a bad driver then? Get those everywhere i wouldn't blame the speed camera

AndyBaker

Your right mate it def was bad driving but doesn't change the fact that if the camera wasn't there there'd have been no accident

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

See

How did you measure the speed of a car several cars in front of you ?

I didn't say you were speeding, I said you'll get a basic response from this lot

MrNoisy

iTrader: (28)

Jesus guys quit giving this poor bloke a hard time, he's making a point I completely agree with - that speed cameras are completely ineffective as a means of policing our roads.

A speed camera can detect if someone is over the speed limit by x mph.
What it can't do is stop idiots tailgating, dangerous overtaking, talking on the phone while driving, not signalling (real bugbear of mine), lane discipline etc, which arguably are what normally cause accidents.

For that, we need traffic police officers, unfortunately the police don't seem to get much budget for this nowadays so it's a vicious circle.
The cameras are there as a money making mechanism for the council / government pure and simple.

Any pretence that they make a positive difference went out the window when the police stopped getting budget for them, and it's been proven that the stats the government produces to claim they reduce deaths are completely flawed as they don't factor in other very important factors such as improved crash safety in vehicles etc in the last 10 years.
I'd say there are far less fatalities on the roads nowadays due to vehicle design, but less money in motorist's pockets due to speed cameras!

Right, sorry rant over

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

No mate, it's idiots that are doing the limit, spot a camera at the last minute and brake, "just in case".......WHY?

AndyBaker

Pimmo you stagger me. Hmm let me think now, we are all driving along at the same speed which was 60 no one was getting away and nobody was slowing down so I'm not sure what you are on about to be honest.

Mr Noisy that my friend was absolutely spot on, my old man was a road traffic cop for 20 years and I could just have been listening to him. There was a time long ago when I was first knocking about in my old Ford Capri and you couldn't look in the rear view mirror without seeing a panda car, almost to the point now where I would say its pretty safe to drink and drive without getting caught and before anybody says what I'm pretty sure they will my best mate was killed by a drink driver. Speed cameras can't tell if you have been drinking or smoking something.

Like Mr Noisy says, revenue collection machines.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

yep +1 on the cop thing.

When i first started driving in 1982 they were everywhere, every time you got in the car and drove for a couple of miles you would see at least a panda car, these days hardly see any when i'm back in the uk except at the airport with machine guns, you have to make an appointment to see a copper at the local station, no wonder there's so much crime.

The camera you speak of is pretty pointless and i don't ever remember there being loads of accidents there before they put it up, be interested to see what the residents of the couple of houses that are a few hundred metres away from it have to say about it.

It must be a good earner though, because its always being burned and battered and they keep fixing it, i believe it's latest incarnation works both ways now too.

In fairness though they have taken out a couple on the A1 near there because they caused quite a few accidents, so maybe this one will go too.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Not likely if it is making money.

Leslie

The real point is, you are expected to be able to stop within the distance you can see ahead. If there is an accident in front of you, you should be able to stop in the distance available. If someone in front suddenly brakes you should have ensured that you have enough room to stop yourself. That is why the man at the extreme rear of the pileup is blamed if he hits the car in front. The moral is obvious!

Les

greenonedave

Got behind total dick in a BMW yesterday, dual carriage way 30 limit,
camera faceing the other way, so **** head slams down to 20mph for the next 100 yrds past the camera whilst driving with his hazard waring lights on !

Myles

iTrader: (40)

I was going to raise that point also, Nik. Some people just go for the brake whatever speed they are doing, when they see the one legged highwayman.

Infected by sti

iTrader: (6)

Having a correct stopping distance is one thing, so if I was to anchor on the brakes due to a hazard with my uprated callipers and discs which are there to improve breaking, would the corsa driver behind me running on standard set up be able to slow down just as fast and make up he same ground I just did with my stopping power? Don't think so even if they were the correct distance away as they don't know I'm going to be able to pull up twice as fast as them so technically that argument is flawed IMO

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

If safe to do so (A15 as an example) when these morons slow down to 45 past a 60 camera, I overtake them at/just under the speed limit. They then look at you as though you've pissed on their Jack Russell with acid

Andy (no points on license as of today!)

AndyBaker

Leslie you are boringly absolutely right but if you see the post by Infected by STI you will see that it is not always possible and plus if you are driving along normally on a normal day with normal weather you don't expect some tw@t in front to step on the brakes ESPECIALLY if you are below the speed limit. FFS

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

AndyBaker

Pimmo just heard about Connery and it just really puts everything into perspective. Sorry if I have offended anyone