Police release Volvo 940 bad driving footage on BBC News

[DaveNP]

Originally Posted by Dibble

Trucks are limited to 56mph.

Putting on my truck drivers hat; trucks are limited to 56 but they're subject to a margin of error in the tacho'/speedo', most probably do about 54 once you allow for the error, most car speedo's however are even more inaccurate so you might well be showing 60 to go with the flow.
As Laney points out a lot of drivers (wrongly) feel pressured to go as fast as they can but then you come up against certain supermarkets who for the sake of PR limit their drivers to 53 or 50 (+ or - error), that's when the 'elephant racing' starts as one truck tries to get past the other, economy driving is all very well and their mpg figures probably look good, just don't ask what they do to the other 95% of road users.

[john.wigley]

What are they? Should I, like Paul (GVM), use a dash-cam for my own protection, or should I continue without, as I have done since 1965?

As I said previously, there has been one occasion only in all of that time when I regretted not having photographic evidence which I would willingly have given to the Police. Those who have been required to give a statement after a serious collision will, I am sure, understand.

I would not, as 'Laney760' puts it, 'dob (sic) someone in' if, as a result of my use of such a device, I recorded an incidence of poor driving. That is rightfully the job of the Police, and I, also like Paul, am neither trained nor qualified to make that judgement call. The answer, as Paul and others have advocated, is a greater and more visible Police presence on our roads.

So, to use, or not to use a dash-cam, that is the question?!

Regards, John.

[canis]

I'd use one, if I had one. I can't imagine they're cheap though. I'd like cameras around the house too, but ... they're not cheap, I've looked.

My fear is that the presence of cameras brings about a situation where any other evidence is considered invalid. Such as a witness. The only witnesses now, I fear, are cameras. Human eyes are no evidence at all.

[Spike56]

Originally Posted by Grimble

Bring back the man with the red flag in front and the roads will be even safer!

Inconsistencies in human behaviour cannot be legislated against despite the wishful thinking of authorities. Do you really think that taking away a criminals licence to drive will really stop him?Lose my job or carry on driving? No contest.

To mix metaphors, that train has left the station.

And yes, the Stasi would be proud of the nation of self-righteous do-gooders that we seem to be becoming.

But..... Like it or not, the law IS the law. If it is against the law to go over a certain speed, I'm sorry, but you cannot cry foul if you are caught! I am quite capable of driving at high speed yet obviously would not do so outside a school or down my local high street, some in my area do! Neither would you have the right to go around a roundabout on the wrong side, just because there were no cars around. Road work traffic lights are another fine example of bad driving. There is always someone who thinks that the lights don't apply to them!

In the event of an accident, dash cam footage is not used by you to determine guilt or fault. It is used to show circumstance and attitude. Dash cams also record events that the driver themselves are not necessarily involved in and can provide visual witness of the event not testimony.

Coming from an industry rife with both overt and covert surveillance I agree that it can be intrusive, but 100 years ago we were either on foot or on horse. This is our time and these then are our tools.

[Christerart]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Isn't it?!

It is rare that I use motorways nowadays, but when I was doing so regularly, particularly when it was busy, I would quite happily sit at 55 in lane one with the lorries. This made for a much less stressful drive than the constant acceleration / deceleration of traffic in the outer lanes with little or no time penalty.

Regards, John.

Yep - that's me..

[Christerart]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Apologies, 'Laney76'; I should more correctly have said 'at the speed of the lorries'! If the flow was 60, I would of course go with it and not sit resolutely on 55!

John.

Yep - me too.

On the other hand - some of the stuff the so called professional drivers do is definitely not professional - such as overtaking another truck/lorry by inching past one inch at a time and while doing so tying up the passing lane for miles.

[green van man]

Originally Posted by Christerart

Yep - me too.

On the other hand - some of the stuff the so called professional drivers do is definitely not professional - such as overtaking another truck/lorry by inching past one inch at a time and while doing so tying up the passing lane for miles.

Why are you entitled to not be delayed and they are not? The fact they are passing, no matter how slowly says they are traveling quicker than the one being overtaken and were being impeded in there progress. They have the same rights as anyone else and pay a huge amount for them.
Try driving a speed governed vehicle and you will appreciate the difficulties especially when on a just in time schedule. When the speed difference is 1 or 2 mph it inevitably takes time, being held up means missed drop times and all the consequences.

Paul.