Safe at Speed? Don't make me laugh!

Originally Posted by Jabba-the-Hutt

How about an alternative scenario? Three cars are a safe distance apart in outside lane. They pass one of the slip-roads and there are two cars on it. Two cars from inside lane move into the "safe gaps" between cars 1 & 2 and 2 & 3 to allow the cars on the slip road to join the carriageway. First car brakes due to a hazard ahead before "safe gaps" are re-established.

Now who's culpable?

Yes, pretty plausible. The point remains then that they are all 5 of them going too fast for the conditions (downhill, which as any fule kno reduces tyre grip when braking; passing a junction so it's not rocket science to predict traffic joining from the left; approaching a roundabout with yellow bars all across the road for about 330m). So slow down, leave more space.

Originally Posted by Flamin_squirrel

Besides, at 70 they wern't exceding the limit anyway. Assuming that there was a camera there and the camera wasnt the direct cause of the accident, the accident would still have occured anyway because they were going too fast for the conditions.

Quite so, I was really just trying to provoke the anti-camera advocates out from under their helmets.

Originally Posted by Steve R

Ever sat in a big 4x4 (eg Toyota Landcruiser) close up to a bike ?
The bike's brake lights are not visible to the 4x4 driver - brake lights are disappearing under the tails of bikes - which I think is a real safety issue. And the SV k3/k4 is a big culprit in this respect.
Of course, I'm assuming that 4x4 drivers would actually care about a bike slowing down.

Well the answer to that is of course to fit a humungous Givi Top-Box with huge built-in high level brake light. I'm sure Jonboy would agrre with me on this one.

some good points there Mr Squirrel.

if only the people in power would see things from your point of veiw.

The conclusion here is based on assumptions and guesswork which in reality could be a million miles from the truth. It could equally be correct, but you can easily come up with a number of different scenarios which place different parties or factors at fault based on the limited evidence observed.

Originally Posted by Cronos

The conclusion here is based on assumptions and guesswork which in reality could be a million miles from the truth. It could equally be correct, but you can easily come up with a number of different scenarios which place different parties or factors at fault based on the limited evidence observed.

What's your point?