Wednesday, 26 January 2011
A crash without 'speeding' flummoxes police.
This says it all. 'No-one knows how this accident happened'? Oh dear oh dear. 'If they weren't "speeding we are totally flummoxed"To which I wrote the following:
No sooner do I pen one letter in response to the 'speeding' issue do I read an astounding account of evidence submitted about a fatal crash that, because neither driver was 'speeding', no-one, not even the crash investigator, can give a reason for it.
The crash investigator even uses the term 'excessive speed' which I deplore because no such state exists in the Road Traffic Act. There is either 'speeding' or driving too fast which is reckless driving at any speed, often below the speed limit; as in this case it seems.
'Excessive speed' should never be used by officials because it muddies the water between 'speeding' that causes no accidents, like in this accident, and driving too fast which does.
If a driver loses control of his vehicle it is because of excessive speed whether 15 MPH or 40 MPH. Don't the Collision Investigation Units even understand that much?
I quote the following extract from my earlier post which was written before I had read this story:
'........not one accident is or can be caused by 'speeding'. By driving too fast, which is reckless driving at any speed, often below the limits too, does but not 'speeding'. No camera can see 'too fast'. They can only see driving above an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole..............'
So the cause of the accident, if reported correctly by the Echo, could only be driving too fast for the bend, or the conditions PC Brown; no matter what the speed limit was.
And this tragic crash is why it is more important for drivers to drive to the road and conditions than to a speedo and for cameras. I am confident that PC Brown would not disagree with drivers driving to the conditions at all times.