BBC footage shows speed cameras causing accidents
Steve in Herts
appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
cameras.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
increase them.
Steve in Herts
And the BBC claim that speed causes 1/3 of all fatal and serious
accidents is meaningless because it is unclear if "speed" means in
excess of the limit or excessive speed for the road conditions. Two
very different things.
Speed plays a factor in all accidents unless vehicles are stationary!
Road_Hog
"Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message
news:nbh8g41o3f1nbfatn...@4ax.com...
Their sole purpose is to increase revenue for the Treasury.
Now, they could take plod out of the van and off of his comfy seat and have
him nick proper criminals.
JackH
"Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message
news:nbh8g41o3f1nbfatn...@4ax.com...
> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> cameras.
Well thank goodness we're getting a network of well scattered 'SPECS'
cameras soon then, eh?
--
JackH
Road_Hog
"Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message
news:t1i8g4dqr20rmj4vu...@4ax.com...
Speed doesn't, incorrect use of speed for the road and conditions, is
sometimes a contributory factor.
AndyC
"Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message
So, cause of accident. Was it the location of the speed camera? or was it
the sudden braking?
Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
Rob
Yep. Simple cause and effect. Without the camera, there would have been no
accident.
--
Rob
DervMan
news:6mj2b3F...@mid.individual.net...
Scarily that was also my first thought! :)
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Hugo Nebula
I have to say that the driver of the first car lost control of their
car, which is not something any driver should do, irrespective of the
cause. From that very brief excerpt, it did not appear that he silver
car was driving much faster than those around it. Indeed that clip shows
that the driver must not have been paying attention to the road, if
their immediate reaction to an event was to slam on their brakes leading
to a skid. It's more likely that that was the cause of the accident than
the speed they were travelling.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed"?
Conor
TBH, SPECS will make no difference to driving for virtually most peopel
on the road. Not many people average anywhere near the NSL on a journey
and there's still about the same amount of fuckwits that brake at SPECS
cameras as there are at GATSOs.
My car spends virtually all its time travelling from YO255EZ to Howden.
Despite a lot of overtaking plus some spirited driving home at 3am, the
trip computer shows an average speed of 43MPH even though 90% of the
journey is NSL.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Steve Firth
> there's still about the same amount of fuckwits that brake at SPECS
> cameras as there are at GATSOs.
Just about every driver on the road for the SPECS cameras on the M3
southbound at the moment. The HA have, IMO, made this worse by setting a
spotlight to illuminate the last SPECS gantry in the series.
Steve Firth
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
>
> I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> increase them.
Thanks for finding that video. I saw the item on the news (it feels like
it was months ago) but was unable to find a vido clip. The video shows
three things. One is, as you have observed the effect that speed cameras
can cause accidents. Another is that despite some vehicles being clocked
at high speed, the drivers/riders are in control and behaving
responsibly. The final point is that despite the crap talked here
(often) by those trying to justify the use of hand-held laser speed
cameras that the cross-hair is clearly dancing all over the vehicle in
question. That is a misuse of the camera since it has already been
proven that unless the camera is held on the same part of the body of
the car moving the camera adds a large component to the measured speed.
A particular case in point is that of the BMW where the camera skates
over several vehicles. A case for speeding brought in that case should
have been laughed out of court, but I doubt that it was.
JackH
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ipf5el.18yx40982lka1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
I had the pleasure of that stretch yesterday... plenty of indignant wafters
in the fast lane (sorry, that of course should be 'lane three' in these
politically correct times), once you cleared the roadworks.
--
JackH
JackH
"DervMan" <thede...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49046237$0$18318$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Welcome to Fortress Britain!
--
JackH
AndyC
"Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MtudnUozG7VP_JnU...@bt.com...
> AndyC wrote:
> ||
> || So, cause of accident. Was it the location of the speed camera? or
> || was it the sudden braking?
> ||
> || Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
>
> Yep. Simple cause and effect. Without the camera, there would have been no
> accident.
On the contrary though, if there was a speed camera on every road every few
hundred yards there would be no surprise when approaching one, no sudden
braking, and no accident. Perhaps these people who loath speed cameras
(because they allegedly cause accidents) ought to be campaigning for more
cameras to take away any element of surprise. That might also help keep the
traffic to within the legal speed limit.
Road_Hog
"AndyC" <web-...@andycrawford.net> wrote in message
news:ge1l2g$btf$1...@aioe.org...
If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden braking?
Steve Firth
I've been doing it every day for the last three months. On Friday I
drove from that SPECS camera to the services at Fleet in Lane 1 at a
steady 65 mph, passing everything in lanes 2 and 3. Lane 1 was empty all
the way.
Plenty of people flashing lights at me and shaking their fists. One
tosser who decided to feint a swerve left at me presumably to "teach me
a lesson", but not one stupid fucker actually returning left despite the
evidence that the lane was clear for miles.
Tony Dragon
what the speed limit is.
I live near the Kingston by pass (A3) speed limit is 50mph (not
unreasonable for most of the day). There are a large number of cameras
on this road.
If you drive at 50mph you usually get to the other end in about the same
time as those speeding (they don't seem to know the right lanes to be in)
Its incredible the number of times that I have seen drivers (including
coaches & HHGV's) driving at 60+ seeing the cameras & then dropping to
40 because that what they think the limit is,
If your going to speed at least know what the limit is.
Tony the Dragon
Tony Dragon
You should know by now lane 1 is often the fastest.
This is particularly true on the M25 on the approaches to the A3.
--
Tony the Dragon
Steve Firth
> You should know by now lane 1 is often the fastest.
> This is particularly true on the M25 on the approaches to the A3.
Oh yes, I got used to that when I was driving from Godstone back to
Hants each day.
AndyC
"Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ge1ul1$3t9$1...@energise.enta.net...
>
> If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden braking?
>
> Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
Then you are back to having the problem of speeding motorists. What would
you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive within the legal
limits?
Brimstone
Why do they need to strictly comply with the limit at all times and places?
What would you do about those who drive badly within the speed limt?
AndyC
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ps2dnZgPP9FjDZnU...@bt.com...
> AndyC wrote:
>> "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ge1ul1$3t9$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>>
>>> If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden
>>> braking? Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
>>
>> Then you are back to having the problem of speeding motorists. What
>> would you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive within
>> the legal limits?
>
> Why do they need to strictly comply with the limit at all times and
> places?
Short answer is, because it is the law. No-one is above the law. If people
can pick and choose what laws they wish to apply to themselves you have
anarchy. Road traffic laws are there to help ensure the safety of everyone.
Even if we do not agree with the law it still applies to us. That's why
people need to comply with the limit. And if they did comply with the limit
we would not need the speed cameras that some people complain about. Speed
cameras exist due to speeding drivers and for no other reason.
> What would you do about those who drive badly within the speed limt?
I don't think that there is much you can actually do about generic behavior
such as "driving badly" if no specific offence has been committed. I'm sure
that all drivers are guilty at some point of "driving badly". Are there any
perfect drivers out there?
John North
Given that in a democracy, laws are supposed to be for the citizens
rather than the control of the citizens - why is that speeding is illegal?
The sheer number of people being prosecuted for speeding offences
(indicating a far higher figure of people actually speeding would
indicate that a significant portion of the citizens to not think
speeding should be illegal...
but then this is no longer a democracy. Parliament does not represent us
- it controls us.
I just wish we could prosecute people for problems not symptoms. E.g. If
a driver causes an accident due to inappropriate speed then why not do
him for dangerous driving?
If I don't have an MOT but my car is roadworthy, why should I be nicked?
Nick me for driving a faulty car - not for failing to prove my innocence.
mick
What surprise? Don't those signs with camera icons on a white
background tell you something?
--
mick
Brimstone
> "Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ps2dnZgPP9FjDZnU...@bt.com...
>> AndyC wrote:
>>> "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ge1ul1$3t9$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>>>
>>>> If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden
>>>> braking? Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
>>>
>>> Then you are back to having the problem of speeding motorists. What
>>> would you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive
>>> within the legal limits?
>>
>> Why do they need to strictly comply with the limit at all times and
>> places?
>
> Short answer is, because it is the law. No-one is above the law. If
> people can pick and choose what laws they wish to apply to themselves
> you have anarchy. Road traffic laws are there to help ensure the
> safety of everyone. Even if we do not agree with the law it still
> applies to us. That's why people need to comply with the limit. And
> if they did comply with the limit we would not need the speed cameras
> that some people complain about. Speed cameras exist due to speeding
> drivers and for no other reason.
But are those speeding drivers causing direct harm to others? If they are
then by all means punish them. If not then what useful purpose is served
when staying within the speed limit is not a guarantee of safety?
>> What would you do about those who drive badly within the speed limt?
>
> I don't think that there is much you can actually do about generic
> behavior such as "driving badly" if no specific offence has been
> committed.
"Lack of due care and attention" covers most things.
> I'm sure that all drivers are guilty at some point of
> "driving badly". Are there any perfect drivers out there?
Exactly my point, everyone breaks the speed limit inadvertantly (and even
deliberately) from time to time without harming anyone. Should they be
punished?
Brimstone
> If I don't have an MOT but my car is roadworthy, why should I be
> nicked? Nick me for driving a faulty car - not for failing to prove
> my innocence.
The aspect that gives the lie to the pronouncements that the MoT confirms
that a vehicle is safe to be on the road is the fact that it only confirms
that the vehicle was in good order at the time of testing. To be fair, it's
difficult to see how it can do anything else. Thus what's the point of an
annual check, apart from providing business for the testers?
Road_Hog
Speeding is the problem, it's bad driving, patrol cars back on the roads to
catch all bad drivers, not just the ones above the speed limit.
There's your answer.
Road_Hog
>
> "Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ps2dnZgPP9FjDZnU...@bt.com...
>> AndyC wrote:
>>> "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ge1ul1$3t9$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>>>
>>>> If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden
>>>> braking? Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
>>>
>>> Then you are back to having the problem of speeding motorists. What
>>> would you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive within
>>> the legal limits?
>>
>> Why do they need to strictly comply with the limit at all times and
>> places?
>
> Short answer is, because it is the law. No-one is above the law.
Really, then why can people be done for careless and also dangerous driving
then?
You have shown yourself up for the pc brigade nobber speed kills that you
are.
DervMan
Not for ever, thankfully.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
John Wright
> "Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ps2dnZgPP9FjDZnU...@bt.com...
>> AndyC wrote:
>>> "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ge1ul1$3t9$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>>> If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden
>>>> braking? Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
>>> Then you are back to having the problem of speeding motorists. What
>>> would you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive within
>>> the legal limits?
>> Why do they need to strictly comply with the limit at all times and
>> places?
>
> Short answer is, because it is the law. No-one is above the law. If people
> can pick and choose what laws they wish to apply to themselves you have
> anarchy. Road traffic laws are there to help ensure the safety of everyone.
That often seems to be how cyclists behave however.
--
John Wright
I used to drive a car a lot also. Duhg Bollen.
Duhg Bollen promised a report on how Vince can reduce his carbon
emissions by moving in late 2007. We're still waiting.
Chris Lawrence
> braking, and no accident. Perhaps these people who loath speed cameras
> (because they allegedly cause accidents) ought to be campaigning for more
> cameras to take away any element of surprise. That might also help keep the
> traffic to within the legal speed limit.
Keeping traffic within the legal speed limit has no bearing on safety
though, and I thought improving safety was supposed to be the goal here?
You can drive safely at 90 mph on the motorway and you're beaking the
law. You can drive at 25 in a 30 and be going far too fast for the
conditions, and no-one will bat an eyelid.
And therein lies the fallacy of speed cameras. I'd like to see all
speed limits removed and replaced with advisory limits where helpful.
And in tandem with that, introduce a much more advanced, staggered
driving test which takes all drivers to the standard currently called
"advanced driving" (it should be considered the norm, not advanced).
And in addition require drivers to continue to demonstrate their
abilities every few years, and reward drivers with either reductions in
premiums or tax, or else a new rebate for maintaining abilities year on
year.
What? Common sense and a carrot approach, not stick? We won't be
seeing that any time soon then. Just add more cameras and pick a number
- much easier to administer, makes more money and gives the illusion
that "something is being done", which is all that counts. Fuck real
safety improvements.
Chris
Chris Lawrence
> Then you are back to having the problem of speeding motorists. What would
> you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive within the legal
> limits?
Remove all "legal limits" and teach drivers how to assess conditions and
drive at appropriate speeds for them. We should be looking at "speeding
motorists" as ones who are going too fast for the conditions, not ones
who are going faster than an arbitrary number. We should also be
looking at lots of other factors, not just speed, for example the
ability to drive in adverse weather.
Chris
AndyC
>
> But are those speeding drivers causing direct harm to others? If they are
> then by all means punish them. If not then what useful purpose is served
> when staying within the speed limit is not a guarantee of safety?
I don't think that causing direct harm is the issue here. I was of the
understanding that speed cameras were a way of extorting money out of those
who break the law.
> "Lack of due care and attention" covers most things.
If you get caught "driving without due care and attention" you might get a
fine, points or whatever. If you get caught speeding, the same applies.
> Exactly my point, everyone breaks the speed limit inadvertantly (and even
> deliberately) from time to time without harming anyone. Should they be
> punished?
That's not the issue here. The issue is the twats who slam on their brakes
because they see a speed camera and cause an accident. There are a lot of
things on the road we need to slow down for: horses, pedestrians, other
drivers who are not clear where they are going, cyclists (yes cyclists too)
and the car behind who is driving too close but speed cameras are not
something that we really need to slow down for.
Road_Hog
>
> "AndyC" <web-...@andycrawford.net> wrote in message
> news:ge2313$29d$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:ge1ul1$3t9$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>>
>>> If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden braking?
>>>
>>> Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
>>
>> Then you are back to having the problem of speeding motorists. What would
>> you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive within the legal
>> limits?
>
>
> There's your answer.
>
> Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
* isn't
Brimstone
> "Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:OvadnUb33a0WBZnU...@bt.com...
>>
>> But are those speeding drivers causing direct harm to others? If
>> they are then by all means punish them. If not then what useful
>> purpose is served when staying within the speed limit is not a
>> guarantee of safety?
>
> I don't think that causing direct harm is the issue here. I was of the
> understanding that speed cameras were a way of extorting money out of
> those who break the law.
Thus bringing the present system into disrepute. Having said that, all such
payments are entirely voluntary.
>> "Lack of due care and attention" covers most things.
>
> If you get caught "driving without due care and attention" you might
> get a fine, points or whatever. If you get caught speeding, the same
> applies.
However, one can be exceeding the speed limit safely. If one is "driving
without due care and attention" then speed is irrelevant.
>> Exactly my point, everyone breaks the speed limit inadvertantly (and
>> even deliberately) from time to time without harming anyone. Should
>> they be punished?
>
> That's not the issue here. The issue is the twats who slam on their
> brakes because they see a speed camera and cause an accident. There
> are a lot of things on the road we need to slow down for: horses,
> pedestrians, other drivers who are not clear where they are going,
> cyclists (yes cyclists too) and the car behind who is driving too
> close but speed cameras are not something that we really need to slow
> down for.
You appear to have changed your tune.
AndyC
> AndyC wrote:
>>
>> That's not the issue here. The issue is the twats who slam on their
>> brakes because they see a speed camera and cause an accident. There
>> are a lot of things on the road we need to slow down for: horses,
>> pedestrians, other drivers who are not clear where they are going,
>> cyclists (yes cyclists too) and the car behind who is driving too
>> close but speed cameras are not something that we really need to slow
>> down for.
>
> You appear to have changed your tune.
Not at all. I just do not subscribe to the idea that an inanimate object at
the side of the road which merely takes an image (or two) of vehicles that
drive past in excess of a certain speed can be blamed for the carnage caused
by a driver who slams on their brakes. It seems to be a thing with a lot of
drivers that as soon as they see a speed camera they are compelled to slow
down, even if they are within the limit. If they are driving at silly
speeds, the desire to slow down is greatly enhanced. But you can't really
blame the camera - all it does it collate evidence.
Harry Bloomfield
> The aspect that gives the lie to the pronouncements that the MoT confirms
> that a vehicle is safe to be on the road is the fact that it only confirms
> that the vehicle was in good order at the time of testing. To be fair, it's
> difficult to see how it can do anything else. Thus what's the point of an
> annual check, apart from providing business for the testers?
Because making sure the vehicle was fit for the road on just one day
per year is better than never checking. Prior to the MOT there were
some really dangerous wrecks on the road.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
Brimstone
If they got from A to B without causing a collision (or other incident)
through mechanical failure in what way were they "dangerous"?
Eeyore
Steve in Herts wrote:
> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> cameras.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
>
> I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> increase them.
Did you also expect politicians to tell the truth ?
Graham
DavidR
> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> cameras.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
Looks like the primary cause is when an unobservant driver in a defective
car slams on the brake for no obvious reason. With the first car, smoke came
off the rear tyres before it started to yaw. Even without ABS, rear wheels
should not lock in the dry.
Even so, perhaps the people behind the wheel ought to get some driving
lessons before they take their repaired vehicles back on the road.
Eeyore
Steve in Herts wrote:
> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> cameras.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
>
> I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> increase them.
Also more lies about speed causing 1/3 of fatal and serious accidents. I
thought it was 6%.
The BBC is losing it.
Graham
Eeyore
Road_Hog wrote:
> "Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message
>
> > The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> > appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> > cameras.
> >
> > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
> >
> > I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> > increase them.
>
> Their sole purpose is to increase revenue for the Treasury.
>
> Now, they could take plod out of the van and off of his comfy seat and have
> him nick proper criminals.
Amen to that. No shortage of crims to catch.
Graham
Eeyore
Conor wrote:
> In article <49046237$0$18318$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, DervMan says...
> > "JackH" <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:6mj2b3F...@mid.individual.net...
> > >
> > > "Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message
> > > news:nbh8g41o3f1nbfatn...@4ax.com...
> > >> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> > >> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> > >> cameras.
> > >
> > > Well thank goodness we're getting a network of well scattered 'SPECS'
> > > cameras soon then, eh?
> >
> >
> > Scarily that was also my first thought! :)
>
> TBH, SPECS will make no difference to driving for virtually most peopel
> on the road. Not many people average anywhere near the NSL on a journey
> and there's still about the same amount of fuckwits that brake at SPECS
> cameras as there are at GATSOs.
>
> My car spends virtually all its time travelling from YO255EZ to Howden.
> Despite a lot of overtaking plus some spirited driving home at 3am, the
> trip computer shows an average speed of 43MPH even though 90% of the
> journey is NSL.
I'd better not tell you what I averaged on the way back from Glastonbury to
St Albans once then ! Mostly motorway of course, but if we had Euro 130kph
speed limits there it would seem very startling.
Graham
Eeyore
Steve Firth wrote:
> Conor <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > there's still about the same amount of fuckwits that brake at SPECS
> > cameras as there are at GATSOs.
>
> Just about every driver on the road for the SPECS cameras on the M3
> southbound at the moment. The HA have, IMO, made this worse by setting a
> spotlight to illuminate the last SPECS gantry in the series.
Just to rub it in you mean ?
Graham
Eeyore
Steve Firth wrote:
> JackH <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote
> > > Conor <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> there's still about the same amount of fuckwits that brake at SPECS
> > >> cameras as there are at GATSOs.
> > >
> > > Just about every driver on the road for the SPECS cameras on the M3
> > > southbound at the moment. The HA have, IMO, made this worse by setting a
> > > spotlight to illuminate the last SPECS gantry in the series.
> >
> > I had the pleasure of that stretch yesterday... plenty of indignant wafters
> > in the fast lane (sorry, that of course should be 'lane three' in these
> > politically correct times), once you cleared the roadworks.
>
> I've been doing it every day for the last three months. On Friday I
> drove from that SPECS camera to the services at Fleet in Lane 1 at a
> steady 65 mph, passing everything in lanes 2 and 3. Lane 1 was empty all
> the way.
>
> Plenty of people flashing lights at me and shaking their fists. One
> tosser who decided to feint a swerve left at me presumably to "teach me
> a lesson", but not one stupid fucker actually returning left despite the
> evidence that the lane was clear for miles.
Lane one is for Conor !
Actually, when a motorway's congested, I often find it quite relaxing driving in
lane one because at least they all keep to much the same speed and there's no
stupid 'ripple braking' effect.
Graham
Eeyore
Tony Dragon wrote:
> You should know by now lane 1 is often the fastest.
Even on the M1 driving North to MK from Redbourn it was often hardly any slower.
And less stressful.
Graham
Eeyore
DervMan wrote:
> "JackH" <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> > "DervMan" <thede...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> "JackH" <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> >>> "Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote
> >>>
> >>>> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> >>>> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> >>>> cameras.
> >>>
> >>> Well thank goodness we're getting a network of well scattered 'SPECS'
> >>> cameras soon then, eh?
> >>
> >> Scarily that was also my first thought! :)
> >
> > Welcome to Fortress Britain!
>
> Not for ever, thankfully.
Care to elaborate on that ?
Graham
Eeyore
AndyC wrote:
> "Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote
>
> > The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> > appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> > cameras.
> >
> > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
> >
> > I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> > increase them.
>
> So, cause of accident. Was it the location of the speed camera? or was it
> the sudden braking?
>
> Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
No speed camera, no accident it seems to me.
And yes, they put the speed camera on a nice safe straight stretch of decent
road instead of some accident black spot.
Graham
Eeyore
AndyC wrote:
> "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> > AndyC wrote:
> > ||
> > || So, cause of accident. Was it the location of the speed camera? or
> > || was it the sudden braking?
> > ||
> > || Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
> >
> > Yep. Simple cause and effect. Without the camera, there would have been no
> > accident.
>
> On the contrary though, if there was a speed camera on every road every few
> hundred yards there would be no surprise when approaching one, no sudden
> braking, and no accident. Perhaps these people who loath speed cameras
> (because they allegedly cause accidents) ought to be campaigning for more
> cameras to take away any element of surprise. That might also help keep the
> traffic to within the legal speed limit.
Give us some sensible speed limits first then.
60 on many an good A-road is absurd and 70 on motorways is insane.
And I'd be in favour of *lowering* speed limits in some residential areas
especially. I doubt I've ever exceeded 20, if that, in my own road.
Graham
Eeyore
Tony Dragon wrote:
> If your going to speed at least know what the limit is.
For a fraction of the cost of speed cameras all roads and cars could be equipped
with 'transponders' that would tell you. It's very simple technology.
Graham
Eeyore
Steve Firth wrote:
> Steve in Herts <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote:
>
> > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
> >
> > I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> > increase them.
>
> Thanks for finding that video. I saw the item on the news (it feels like
> it was months ago) but was unable to find a vido clip. The video shows
> three things. One is, as you have observed the effect that speed cameras
> can cause accidents. Another is that despite some vehicles being clocked
> at high speed, the drivers/riders are in control and behaving
> responsibly. The final point is that despite the crap talked here
> (often) by those trying to justify the use of hand-held laser speed
> cameras that the cross-hair is clearly dancing all over the vehicle in
> question. That is a misuse of the camera since it has already been
> proven that unless the camera is held on the same part of the body of
> the car moving the camera adds a large component to the measured speed.
>
> A particular case in point is that of the BMW where the camera skates
> over several vehicles. A case for speeding brought in that case should
> have been laughed out of court, but I doubt that it was.
Agreed. As one who designs electronics and knows the potential flaws, Plods'
faith in their accuracy is entirely unjustified.
Graham
Conor
> Actually, when a motorway's congested, I often find it quite relaxing driving in
> lane one because at least they all keep to much the same speed and there's no
> stupid 'ripple braking' effect.
>
Too true.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Conor
says...
> Its incredible the number of times that I have seen drivers (including
> coaches & HHGV's) driving at 60+ seeing the cameras & then dropping to
> 40 because that what they think the limit is,
>
If it's a dual carriageway type without a central divider, the lorries
drop down to 40 because it's actually classed as a S/C road and that's
what the limit is. Quite a few have been caught out on the A556 because
even though its two lanes in each direction, there's no divider and
it's not classed as a D/C.
JackH
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ipf9bi.nqiradou813jN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> JackH <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1ipf5el.18yx40982lka1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> > Conor <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> there's still about the same amount of fuckwits that brake at SPECS
>> >> cameras as there are at GATSOs.
>> >
>> > Just about every driver on the road for the SPECS cameras on the M3
>> > southbound at the moment. The HA have, IMO, made this worse by setting
>> > a
>> > spotlight to illuminate the last SPECS gantry in the series.
>>
>> I had the pleasure of that stretch yesterday... plenty of indignant
>> wafters
>> in the fast lane (sorry, that of course should be 'lane three' in these
>> politically correct times), once you cleared the roadworks.
>
> I've been doing it every day for the last three months. On Friday I
> drove from that SPECS camera to the services at Fleet in Lane 1 at a
> steady 65 mph, passing everything in lanes 2 and 3. Lane 1 was empty all
> the way.
>
> Plenty of people flashing lights at me and shaking their fists. One
> tosser who decided to feint a swerve left at me presumably to "teach me
> a lesson", but not one stupid fucker actually returning left despite the
> evidence that the lane was clear for miles.
Fucking idiots.
The thing is... if I'm on the bike, more often than not they will shift
over, yet I tend to go as fast, (if not quicker), in the car???
--
JackH
JackH
"DervMan" <thede...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49049e68$0$10548$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...> news:6mjbb1F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "DervMan" <thede...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:49046237$0$18318$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...>>>> "Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message
>>>> news:nbh8g41o3f1nbfatn...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
>>>>> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
>>>>> cameras.
>>>>
>>>> cameras soon then, eh?
>>>
>>> Scarily that was also my first thought! :)
>>
>> Welcome to Fortress Britain!
>
>
> Not for ever, thankfully.
Don't blame you... although I'm not sure anywhere is going to be much better
given time.
--
JackH
Steve Firth
> And yes, they put the speed camera on a nice safe straight stretch of decent
> road instead of some accident black spot.
Well of course, they make more money that way.
Steve Firth
>
> Give us some sensible speed limits first then.
>
> 60 on many an good A-road is absurd and 70 on motorways is insane.
>
> And I'd be in favour of *lowering* speed limits in some residential areas
> especially. I doubt I've ever exceeded 20, if that, in my own road.
And perform some decent hoghway engineering in cities *or* provide
adequate PT. An outer circle line is long overdue for the underground,
for example but no one seems to have the vision of the Victorians and
Edwardians when it comes to providing transport in cities.
And it's well past time that the North and South Circular roads were
made fit for purpose. To have a single lane road with a 30 limit between
Hanger Lane and Hanger Lane Gyratory seems to be the height of insanity.
Brimstone
Hanger Lane terminates at the Gyratory.
There were proposals from the DoT some 15-16 years ago to put a tunnel under
Ealing Common and other developments between the Gyratory and Chiswick
Roundabout. But, what would be the point? Instead of a series of short
queues at the intermediate junctions there would be long ones at Chiswick
and at the Gyratory. The result would a great expense of public money and no
time saved for traffic passing through.
Bill
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>JackH <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Plenty of people flashing lights at me and shaking their fists. One
>tosser who decided to feint a swerve left at me presumably to "teach me
>a lesson",
A long story, but briefly I was travelling south on the M6 in the
midlands last Friday afternoon and as usual the inside lane was all but
clear and the 2nd and 3rd moving at about the same speed as each
another, 60MPH ish. Now I'm not saying that what I did was right but
what the guy to my right did was almost attempted murder by proxy!! I
was in lane 1 and as I came beside the car to my right in lane 2 the
fellow behind him that I had passed a moment or two before started
flashing his lights so the car beside me then decided to move left, as
he should have done miles before. I saw the light flashing and realised
what was about to happen and so slowed, the light flasher then passed me
in the space he had created, he looked across at me and smiled. I
reckon that he deliberately tried to force the other driver to move left
into me!
Yes I know undertaking is frowned upon but when each lane is subject to
large and sudden fluctuations in speed it sometimes happens without
being planned, if lane 1 is travelling at say 65 and lane 2 or 3 slows
from 70 to 60 is lane 1 expected to slow or carry on as it was??
--
Bill
Chris Lawrence
> Yes I know undertaking is frowned upon but when each lane is subject to
> large and sudden fluctuations in speed it sometimes happens without
> being planned, if lane 1 is travelling at say 65 and lane 2 or 3 slows
> from 70 to 60 is lane 1 expected to slow or carry on as it was??
I would argue that you were not undertaking. Overtaking is a planned
manoeuvre to pass a slower moving vehicle. Undertaking is executing
that planned manoeuvre on the near side instead. If you were simply
travelling at the correct speed in a clear lane, and were closing on the
vehicle to your right, then that vehicle was at fault for not being in
the same lane to start with. Undertaking is typically where someone
moves to the left in order to pass a vehicle (you see big swinging dick
sales rep types, with their suit jackets hanging in the back window of
their new Audi toy, doing this from time to time).
Your other options would be a) move across one lane, then move across
again to overtake, or b) slow to the same speed so that you do not pass
it. Neither are very satisfactory. However there's a safety element in
passing to their left, which is that they may not be expecting a car to
be closing there - they're already not paying much attention anyway -
and so may start to move left while you're moving through their blind
spot. You also occasionally get self-appointed traffic cops who feel
it's their duty to enforce their interpretation of the rules in all
kinds of situations.
There's also the rule in the HC which says that you may keep up with
traffic in your lane, even if it means passing traffic to your right, in
congested traffic. "Congested" is not defined but someone travelling
below the speed limit in the middle lane when they should be in the left
lane is certainly not helping with the free flow.
Chris
Graz
<ne...@holosys.co.uk> wrote:
>Bill wrote:
>> Yes I know undertaking is frowned upon but when each lane is subject to
>> large and sudden fluctuations in speed it sometimes happens without
>> being planned, if lane 1 is travelling at say 65 and lane 2 or 3 slows
>> from 70 to 60 is lane 1 expected to slow or carry on as it was??
>
>I would argue that you were not undertaking. Overtaking is a planned
>manoeuvre to pass a slower moving vehicle. Undertaking is executing
>that planned manoeuvre on the near side instead. If you were simply
>travelling at the correct speed in a clear lane, and were closing on the
>vehicle to your right, then that vehicle was at fault for not being in
>the same lane to start with.
Precisely.
I find myself doing this a lot in town when there's an out-of-hours
bus lane and everyone else seems to prefer avoiding it.
Graz
wrote:
>In message <1ipf9bi.nqiradou813jN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
><%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>>JackH <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Plenty of people flashing lights at me and shaking their fists. One
>>tosser who decided to feint a swerve left at me presumably to "teach me
>>a lesson",
>
>A long story, but briefly I was travelling south on the M6 in the
>midlands last Friday afternoon and as usual the inside lane was all but
>clear and the 2nd and 3rd moving at about the same speed as each
>another, 60MPH ish. Now I'm not saying that what I did was right but
>what the guy to my right did was almost attempted murder by proxy!! I
>was in lane 1 and as I came beside the car to my right in lane 2 the
>fellow behind him that I had passed a moment or two before started
>flashing his lights so the car beside me then decided to move left, as
>he should have done miles before. I saw the light flashing and realised
>what was about to happen and so slowed, the light flasher then passed me
>in the space he had created, he looked across at me and smiled. I
>reckon that he deliberately tried to force the other driver to move left
>into me!
If anything had happened, you could only blame the driver who moved
left into your path, not the driver behind flashing his lights.
They're supposed to look before they move into an adjacent lane.
Eeyore
Steve Firth wrote:
I couldn't agree more.
This country suffers dreadfully from the lack of good radial routes (especially
around London), causing traffic congestion and unnecessary fuel usage /
emissions.
Better rail routes too, as you mention could make many journeys by public
transport far more practical.
Graham
Rob
||| "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
||| news:MtudnUozG7VP_JnU...@bt.com...
|||| AndyC wrote:
||||||
|||||| So, cause of accident. Was it the location of the speed camera?
|||||| or was it the sudden braking?
||||||
|||||| Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
||||
|||| Yep. Simple cause and effect. Without the camera, there would have
|||| been no accident.
|||
||| On the contrary though, if there was a speed camera on every road
||| every few hundred yards there would be no surprise when approaching
||| one, no sudden braking, and no accident. Perhaps these people who
||| loath speed cameras (because they allegedly cause accidents) ought
||| to be campaigning for more cameras to take away any element of
||| surprise. That might also help keep the traffic to within the legal
||| speed limit.
||
|| background tell you something?
No not really, since they are just about everywhere, they have become
meaningless.
--
Rob
Conor
> This country suffers dreadfully from the lack of good radial routes
Where?
> (especially
> around London), causing traffic congestion and unnecessary fuel usage /
> emissions.
Ah...so you're a southerner? Yeah, you reap what you sow for living in
a high density populated area.
Steve Firth
> On 2008-10-26, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Give us some sensible speed limits first then.
> >>
> >> 60 on many an good A-road is absurd and 70 on motorways is insane.
> >>
> >> And I'd be in favour of *lowering* speed limits in some residential areas
> >> especially. I doubt I've ever exceeded 20, if that, in my own road.
> >
> > And perform some decent hoghway engineering
>
> Flying pigs?
I think Freud purchased my fingers and didn't leave a receipt.
Eeyore
Steve in Herts wrote:
> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> cameras.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
>
> I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> increase them.
VIDEO now *REMOVED* from Youtube
Someone's not happy about the truth !
Graham
Harry Bloomfield
> If they got from A to B without causing a collision (or other incident)
> through mechanical failure in what way were they "dangerous"?
Because some of those wrecks were being driven around with bald tyres,
faulty brakes, lights and possibly even the chassis rusted through to
the point of collapse.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
Brimstone
> Brimstone brought next idea :
>> If they got from A to B without causing a collision (or other
>> incident) through mechanical failure in what way were they
>> "dangerous"?
>
> Because some of those wrecks were being driven around with bald tyres,
> faulty brakes, lights and possibly even the chassis rusted through to
> the point of collapse.
Which might be accurate but doesn't answer my question.
Brimstone
Elder
rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com says...
> Lane one is for Conor !
>
> Actually, when a motorway's congested, I often find it quite relaxing driving in
> lane one because at least they all keep to much the same speed and there's no
> stupid 'ripple braking' effect.
>
where L1 becomes a slip road, and 2 and 3 continue as a motorway means
even though I could travel much faster in L1, as I approached altrincham
and need to move to lane two, there is no space to get it as it is
bumper to bumper, so I would need to stop dead in lane one until someone
takes pity on me holding up traffic with my indicator going.
The alternative is to move over at about 3-5 miles out while it is
flowing, but quickly about to slow down, and watch L1 sail past as I
queue.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
DervMan
news:4904E47F...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> DervMan wrote:
>
>> "JackH" <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> > "DervMan" <thede...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> "JackH" <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> >>> "Steve in Herts" <nos...@invalidaddress.blob> wrote
>> >>>
>> >>>> The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
>> >>>> appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
>> >>>> cameras.
>> >>>
>> >>> cameras soon then, eh?
>> >>
>> >> Scarily that was also my first thought! :)
>> >
>> > Welcome to Fortress Britain!
>>
>> Not for ever, thankfully.
>
My wife is American. We're emigrating.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
DervMan
I need me some wild open spaces...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Nick Finnigan
> "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ge1ul1$3t9$1...@energise.enta.net...
>> If the speed camera wasn't there, would you have had the sudden braking?
>>
>> Seems like a no-brainer to me. YMMV.
>
> you suggest the best way is to ensure that drivers drive within the legal
> limits?
Set the legal limits somewhere between 320mph and 370mph.
Nick Finnigan
>
> Looks like the primary cause is when an unobservant driver in a defective
> car slams on the brake for no obvious reason.
Yes.
> With the first car, smoke came
> off the rear tyres before it started to yaw. Even without ABS, rear wheels
> should not lock in the dry.
But no. You should be able to lock the wheels, and the rear ones first.
Adrian
were saying:
>> With the first car, smoke came off the rear tyres before it started to
>> yaw. Even without ABS, rear wheels should not lock in the dry.
> But no. You should be able to lock the wheels, and the rear ones first.
The rear brakes most certainly should NOT lock first.
Brimstone
Assuming no ABS etc the rear brakes will always lock first as the weight
comes off them and transfers to the front.
Adrian
like they were saying:
No, they don't - nor should they. The balance _should_ be such that even
with the weight transferred for'ards, the fronts lock first.
Anybody who's ever driven something with fucked-up balance, and had to
brake hard in anything other than a straight line, will tell you EXACTLY
why.
Mortimer
news:aJ-dndIyb-iyqJvU...@bt.com...
But the distribution of front braking versus rear braking should be designed
so that even with weight transfer on the front wheels, the rear wheels don't
lock first. That usually means that the majority of the braking force will
be designed to be on the front wheels because the extra weight on the front
end in heavy braking will result in extra tyre-road adhesion which will
lessen the chance of the wheels locking.
Brimstone
Hence I said, assuming "no abs etc".
Mortimer
Er, no. The unequal front/rear braking distribution is something that will
be designed into *all* braking systems, not just those on vehicles with ABS.
Brimstone
Hence I said, assuming "no abs etc".
Brimstone
(sigh) did a part of the "etc" pass you by?
Mortimer
Ah, sorry. I took your "etc" to imply braking systems that worked in the
same way as ABS. Your phrase "abs etc" would seem to include all roadworthy
vehicles. Are there actually any cars that have braking systems which
*don't* distribute the majority of the braking to the front wheels?
Brimstone
I agree that there unlikely to be any in current production, but there are
very likely to be some older models still around.
Mortimer
OK. Fair point. Maybe you should have elaborated a bit how all-embracing
your "etc" was intended to be, to avoid people like me and Adrian
misunderstanding.
As a matter of interest, when did cars start to be designed so as to
distribute more braking force to the front wheels to compensate for the
extra weight on the front wheels that will occur during heavy braking?
Elder
@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
> In <MPG.237032444...@news.individual.net>, Elder
> <carl....@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>
> >I would love to use lane 1 on my commute, the M56 bottle neck altrincham
> >where L1 becomes a slip road, and 2 and 3 continue as a motorway means
> >even though I could travel much faster in L1, as I approached altrincham
> >and need to move to lane two, there is no space to get it as it is
> >bumper to bumper, so I would need to stop dead in lane one until someone
> >takes pity on me holding up traffic with my indicator going.
> >
> >The alternative is to move over at about 3-5 miles out while it is
> >flowing, but quickly about to slow down, and watch L1 sail past as I
> >queue.
>
> M6J3 where the traffic on the motorway can be at a standstill[*] while
> traffic which is joining piles on at well over 20mph. It's bonkers and
> counter-intuitive, but even if I have to stop at the traffic lights down
> on the roundabout it's actually quicker not to stay on the motorway!
>
> [*] caused IMHO by combinations of "excessive politeness", people wrongly
> thinking that traffic on the motorway must give way to joining traffic,
> and people in L1 moving into the already-congested L2 bringing it to a
> complete halt.
>
Junction 7 I think it is. And it isn't straight forward.
The exit and entrance junctions aren't even on the same road as I
recall.
And when you leave you are heading into a load of road works to get back
on.
Nick Finnigan
In your experience of FWD vehicles, which one does?
Mortimer
news:ge5htk$1tp$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
Does FWD versus RWD actually make much difference to which set of wheels
locks first? FWD has a bit of extra weight at the front because the diff is
there whereas for RWD it's at the back end, but you'd think that would be
compensated for by an adjustment in the distribution between front and rear
braking force.
The fact that the driving force is channelled through different wheels
shouldn't be relevant because you are unlikely to be driving any wheels
during heavy braking because you will have come off the power in order to
press the footbrake.
Eeyore
Brimstone wrote:
There's something funny going on then.
When I tried to refresh I got "sorry this video is no longer available".
When I reused the original link it was OK ! BUT you need to remove the
"&feature=email" part to make it reliable.
I.e. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU
Graham
Eeyore
Steve Firth wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Steve in Herts wrote:
> >
> > > The primary cause of the two accidents at speed camera locations
> > > appears to have been due to drivers sudden braking on seeing the
> > > cameras.
> > >
> > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU&feature=email
> > >
> > > I though the idea of the cameras was to reduce accident rates, not
> > > increase them.
> >
> > VIDEO now *REMOVED* from Youtube
>
> Not when I had a look a few minutes ago.
See my repsonse ro Brimstone for details.
> > Someone's not happy about the truth !
>
> Indeed, but here's a clip to keep you happy:
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5q-IE2Yxo
LMAO ! Actually it's not a laughing matter, it's damn serious.
I'll be propagating these links. Thanks.
Graham
Adrian
saying:
> As a matter of interest, when did cars start to be designed so as to
> distribute more braking force to the front wheels to compensate for the
> extra weight on the front wheels that will occur during heavy braking?
At the same time as front wheel brakes started to be introduced - so
that'd be somewhere around WW1.
Adrian
were saying:
>>> But no. You should be able to lock the wheels, and the rear ones
>>> first.
>> The rear brakes most certainly should NOT lock first.
> In your experience of FWD vehicles, which one does?
The driven wheels make no difference to braking bias.
I used to have a Citroen Mehari, which'd been rechassised onto a normal
late 2cv chassis, so didn't have a load-proportioning valve for the rear
brakes. It needs it, because there's fuck all weight on the rear. Some
tit pulled out in front of me on a damp roundabout one day. I found
myself glaring at him through first the door window then the rear side as
the back end locked and swung round faster than you'd think possible.
Mortimer
news:6mo25pF...@mid.individual.net...
So Brimstone was being a bit optimistic when he said "there are
very likely to be some older models still around" [without front-rear brake
distribution] ;-)
So, barring that small number of vehicles without brake distribution, it
should be very rare for the rear wheels to lock before the front wheels -
unless you do an emergency stop while travelling backwards ;-)
Adrian
saying:
>>> As a matter of interest, when did cars start to be designed so as to
>>> distribute more braking force to the front wheels to compensate for
>>> the extra weight on the front wheels that will occur during heavy
>>> braking?
>> At the same time as front wheel brakes started to be introduced - so
>> that'd be somewhere around WW1.
> So Brimstone was being a bit optimistic when he said "there are very
> likely to be some older models still around" [without front-rear brake
> distribution] ;-)
Oh, they're about all right. And if you hang around Westminster Bridge on
a cold Sunday at the start of next month, you'll see quite a few of 'em.
I doubt any of 'em could lock the rear wheels easily, though - at least,
not on any surface short of an ice-rink...
> So, barring that small number of vehicles without brake distribution, it
> should be very rare for the rear wheels to lock before the front wheels
> - unless you do an emergency stop while travelling backwards ;-)
In that instance, the front wheels should lock EVEN sooner, because the
weight transfer will be off them, so the massively greater breaking force
will have less to oppose it.