car crash

graemer

graemer

graemer

Associate
Joined
21 Apr 2004
Posts
536
Location
South Shields
I witnessed the aftermath of a car crash this morning made me feel sick all day but there is a question I would like some discussion on.

The scene

I was driving toward Newcastle at about 8.20. Was on the stretch of road from Whitemare Pool to Heworth Metro Station (if any one know it).

It had been snowing overnight and the roads were a but iced up but nothing too bad.

It may help to describe the road. It is a dual carriage way with a limit of 50. There is a speed camera on the carriage way heading into Newcastle area. This road however many people often ignore the speed limits on the other carriage way heading away from Newcastle (this will become important later). Between the 2 carriageways is some metal fencing about 5 foot ish high.

I passed a car crash that could have only happened moments ago.

A N reg Clio had been heading on the carriage way coming from Newcastle and had some how skidded and turned 90 degrees and smashed into the metal fencing. Is I drove passed i could see a person in the passenger side in a very bad way. There was a man with a radio (not police) looking into the car and I presume seeking assistance from the emergency services. I did not get a good view but I could not see the driver. Also it looked like the passengers head was pouring with blood and he may have been impaled on one of the metal fencing rods as it had penetrated the car from the passenger side window.

Now you are probably thinking what an unfortunate accident and hope the guy gets better etc however my final observation is what I would like peoples opinion on.

On the hard shoulder of the carriage way the car was driving along was a mobile speed camera unit only 10 or so yards down from where the accident happened and the person looking into the car with the radio was the person who was from that van.

My question is this was the speed camera van in some way responsible for the accident? and if it hadnt been there would the accident have happened?

I havent posted my opinion on this so please dont flame me. However on my "limited" knowledge and view it would appear that the clio was going too fast saw the mobile camera unit braked heavy and the skidded on some black ice.

What do other people think.
 
Completely, totally and utterly impossible to tell, without witness statements, accident reports etc.
 
So you're trying to blame the speed camera van as if it wasn't there the guy who was speeding wouldn't have paniced / crashed? :confused:

Note speeding in bad conditions too.

Madness on your part if you ask me!

(Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here :o)

Edit - See post below.
 
Last edited:
i know the road... If the driver in the clio was speeding and broke for the camera van then skidded and hit the fense.. then the driver was going to fast for the condidtions.. not the camera vans fault. really

i hope this accident wasnt fatal like the one not too long ago in south sheilds :(


Edit...

to the post above.. hes not trying to blame anything.. hes just asking people opinion.. he stated he has not posted his opinion.
 
Last edited:
Sorry yer, I'm sure he added the below after I read it... Or for some reason I just didn't read it :o Apologies

graemer said:
I havent posted my opinion on this so please dont flame me. However on my "limited" knowledge and view it would appear that the clio was going too fast saw the mobile camera unit braked heavy and the skidded on some black ice.

What do other people think.
Click to expand...


Anyway the point still stands, the camera van bares no fault AT ALL.
 
TripleT said:
Anyway the point still stands, the camera van bares no fault AT ALL.
Click to expand...

Of course it does, if it wasn't there, the accident may well have not happened, it's a but for cause!
 
Sorry what I mean is...

Yes if it wasn't there then it may not have happened. But no blame can be but on the van. You could also say if he wasn't exceeding the speed limit then it never would have happened as he wouldn't of had to slam on. :)

If he was doing under 50mph then he never would have had to slam on whether the van was there or not, therefore his own fault.

(This is all assuming that that's the reason for the crash obviously :p)
 
Last edited:
Muncher said:
Of course it does, if it wasn't there, the accident may well have not happened, it's a but for cause!
Click to expand...
i suppose the metal fencing was partly to blame for the accident too?
if it hadn't been there then the injuries would either not have occured,or would definitely have been less severe.
the UK's very own "victim culture".....it can't be the drivers fault so who's fault was it?
the driver was driving too fast for the conditions,end of story.
 
Am I the only one that brakes instinctively when I see a camera / van regardless of whether I'm actually speeding or not (which I rarely am these days)?

Call ita guilty conscience if you like.
 
Now this will really bake your noodle..Is it not possible that the camera van actually stopped to help the car after the accident occured?? or do you know for sure that it was there pre accident?
 
Baron G said:
Am I the only one that brakes instinctively when I see a camera / van regardless of whether I'm actually speeding or not (which I rarely am these days)?

Call ita guilty conscience if you like.
Click to expand...
personally the second i see a cam or camera van i check my speedo and decide if i need to slow down from there.
anyone that just instictively hits the anchors is someone i'd like on a different road to myself.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
personally the second i see a cam or camera van i check my speedo and decide if i need to slow down from there.
anyone that just instictively hits the anchors is someone i'd like on a different road to myself.
Click to expand...

If you're following at a safe distance what's the problem? If you're not then I don't want to be on the road with you either.

In fairness, I don't ever break hard without checking what's behind me first (unless faced with kamikazee children or the like). But the urge is definately there.
 
Last edited:
Baron G said:
If you're following at a safe distance what's the problem? If you're not then I don't want to be on the road with you either.
Click to expand...
the problem is you may cause the guy behind you (who may not be at a safe distance behind you) to brake thereby causing an accident.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
the problem is you may cause the guy behind you (who may not be at a safe distance behind you) to brake thereby causing an accident.
Click to expand...

Sorry - see edit above...

That's kind of my point. If the person behind you is too close or not paying attention, it might not matter why, or how hard you brake - the possibility of an accident is there.

You say you check your speed before deciding to break - no mention of checking your mirrors, which is the key thing. How many people would risk three points and not slow down for a camera because they're worried the guy behind on his mobile might rear-end you. By the time you've worked all that out, you'll be through the camera.

I'm not justifying or condoning the way I or anyone else drives here but pointing out a fact - people break when they see cameras even if they are not speeding. In carp weather, even the slightest touch of the brakes could initiate a spin.
 
Baron G said:
Sorry - see edit above...

That's kind of my point. If the person behind you is too close or not paying attention, it might not matter why, or how hard you brake - the possibility of an accident is there.
Click to expand...
very true,while you cannot remove the possibility of someone "rear-ending" you,you can minimize it.
Baron G said:
You say you check your speed before deciding to break - no mention of checking your mirrors, which is the key thing. How many people would risk three points and not slow down for a camera because they're worried the guy behind on his mobile might rear-end you. By the time you've worked all that out, you'll be through the camera
Click to expand...
i didn't mention checking my mirrors because it's a habit i have at all times behind the wheel.
when you do an advanced test of any description the instructor will ask you,without checking your mirror,what is behind you and how close.
if i'd detected someone driving too close i'd have rectified the situation immediately and certainly before any situation that required me to brake.
Baron G said:
I'm not justifying or condoning the way I or anyone else drives here but pointing out a fact - people break when they see cameras even if they are not speeding.
Click to expand...
i would argue that a good driver should know at all times what speed he is driving at and would already know if braking was required.
Baron G said:
In carp weather, even the slightest touch of the brakes could initiate a spin.
Click to expand...
never a truer word said.
but look at it this way.knowing the fact you mention above,wouldn't that mean that by definition you would've intentionally been driving SLOWER than the limit anyway?
only a muppet thinks a 50 limit means 50mph in heatwaves and blizzards alike.
it then follows if you were driving slower than the limit due to weather conditions then you SHOULD realise there is no need to brake for a camera as you are not even AT the limit never mind over it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom