Devastated family of Jade Clark collect thousands of signatures calling for lower speed limit on A31

Bournemouth Echo: PETITION: Sharon and Danny Clark with Linda Pidgley and the signatures they have collected PETITION: Sharon and Danny Clark with Linda Pidgley and the signatures they have collected

THE devastated family of tragic Jade Clark have collected over a thousand signatures calling for the speed limit to be reduced on a section of the A31.

Jade’s mother and stepfather, Sharon and Danny Clark, and her nan, Linda Pidgley, are determined no other family should suffer their pain and have vowed to keep fighting until something is done.

Sixteen-year-old Jade was killed when she was knocked off her scooter as she rode westbound towards the Ashley Heath roundabout.

Ringwood town council pressed for a 50mph restriction between Picket Post and the roundabout but the Government turned down the request, saying that only three per cent of the accidents that occurred there were due to motorists speeding.

But Sharon, 42, said: “I just don’t want anyone else to go through what I’ve gone through.

“We want to see the speed limit cut in the section from the two Burley garages to the Ashley Heath roundabout.

“It’s very dangerous there. You get people coming out of the petrol station at a standstill into 70mph traffic and people trying to swap lanes all at one location.

“I know there will be another fatal accident, I know it will happen again.

“At the moment we feel like they‘re not listening to us; they’re not taking it seriously, but I’m not the type to give up.”

She added the family’s grief had been compounded by the news that Brian Hampton was to appeal against the six-year sentence for causing the crash that killed Jade and then attempting to evade justice.

“It disgusted me when I heard he was appealing,” she said. “I felt sick. It was so soon afterwards.” But she said overwhelming support from the community in Ringwood had helped the family and she thanked Spencer McCarthy, of Churchill Retirement Living, and Kevin Morrison and all his crew at Ringwood fire station for their efforts to keep Jade’s memory alive.

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:46am Wed 8 Jan 14

Understated says...

i dont think thats the solution here...
i dont think thats the solution here... Understated

6:46am Wed 8 Jan 14

Ginny nz says...

No one sticks to speed limits anyway so it would be a waste of time !!
No one sticks to speed limits anyway so it would be a waste of time !! Ginny nz

6:48am Wed 8 Jan 14

Huey says...

More police needed to stop disqualified drivers taking to the road in the first place please.
More police needed to stop disqualified drivers taking to the road in the first place please. Huey

6:53am Wed 8 Jan 14

Forest Resident says...

It's not the speed of traffic on the A31 that causes any problems, it's the inability or incompetence of drivers joining the A31 to merge into traffic correctly without impeding the progress of others, aside from education a simple redesign and lengthening of slip roads would address these minor issues in a heartbeat. The data from the Highways Agency has already shown speed is not the dominant factor in most collisions on this stretch of the A31.
It's not the speed of traffic on the A31 that causes any problems, it's the inability or incompetence of drivers joining the A31 to merge into traffic correctly without impeding the progress of others, aside from education a simple redesign and lengthening of slip roads would address these minor issues in a heartbeat. The data from the Highways Agency has already shown speed is not the dominant factor in most collisions on this stretch of the A31. Forest Resident

6:57am Wed 8 Jan 14

SympatheticSam says...

As others have said, it's ridiculous to blame speed for this. If everyone drove with a sensible gap in front of them, no accidents would happen. Just use mirrors and think, whether at 20mph or 80mph.
As others have said, it's ridiculous to blame speed for this. If everyone drove with a sensible gap in front of them, no accidents would happen. Just use mirrors and think, whether at 20mph or 80mph. SympatheticSam

7:07am Wed 8 Jan 14

alasdair1967 says...

No disrespect to the memory of jade or too her family ,this is a subject that has been discussed over and over again ,speed is not an issue it is the road layout itself that is the issue ,very very few accidents have been attributed to speed on this stretch of road and there are official reports that back my statement up ,
No disrespect to the memory of jade or too her family ,this is a subject that has been discussed over and over again ,speed is not an issue it is the road layout itself that is the issue ,very very few accidents have been attributed to speed on this stretch of road and there are official reports that back my statement up , alasdair1967

7:17am Wed 8 Jan 14

carol_uk says...

it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling
it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling carol_uk

7:42am Wed 8 Jan 14

Chris the plumber says...

carol_uk wrote:
it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling
What rubbish all the injuries caused on this length of road are caused by speed... if the van that ran over poor Jade was doing 30 he would have had time to stop but he was allowed by law to do 70 and he could not stop. accidents were not always caused by excessive speed but the speed you are driving at has a big impact on any injuries you sustain. Hit a car at 30 mph and a you get a dent or two hit the same car at 70 and you may well die..
Now tell me speed dos`nt matter.
[quote][p][bold]carol_uk[/bold] wrote: it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling[/p][/quote]What rubbish all the injuries caused on this length of road are caused by speed... if the van that ran over poor Jade was doing 30 he would have had time to stop but he was allowed by law to do 70 and he could not stop. accidents were not always caused by excessive speed but the speed you are driving at has a big impact on any injuries you sustain. Hit a car at 30 mph and a you get a dent or two hit the same car at 70 and you may well die.. Now tell me speed dos`nt matter. Chris the plumber

7:43am Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again.
We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.
As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again. We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE. dorsetspeed

7:45am Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
carol_uk wrote:
it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling
What rubbish all the injuries caused on this length of road are caused by speed... if the van that ran over poor Jade was doing 30 he would have had time to stop but he was allowed by law to do 70 and he could not stop. accidents were not always caused by excessive speed but the speed you are driving at has a big impact on any injuries you sustain. Hit a car at 30 mph and a you get a dent or two hit the same car at 70 and you may well die..
Now tell me speed dos`nt matter.
So what speed does your simplistic "the slower you go the less it hurts" algorithm tell us we should drive at? If you can't work it out I'll tell you: ZERO. People get killed in 30 and even 20 limits.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carol_uk[/bold] wrote: it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling[/p][/quote]What rubbish all the injuries caused on this length of road are caused by speed... if the van that ran over poor Jade was doing 30 he would have had time to stop but he was allowed by law to do 70 and he could not stop. accidents were not always caused by excessive speed but the speed you are driving at has a big impact on any injuries you sustain. Hit a car at 30 mph and a you get a dent or two hit the same car at 70 and you may well die.. Now tell me speed dos`nt matter.[/p][/quote]So what speed does your simplistic "the slower you go the less it hurts" algorithm tell us we should drive at? If you can't work it out I'll tell you: ZERO. People get killed in 30 and even 20 limits. dorsetspeed

7:57am Wed 8 Jan 14

Miss Opinionated says...

extending the 50 mph zone by a couple of miles would slow people down through a complicated junction, allowing them more time to get in the right lane instead of haring through at 70 or 80.

I don't understand why that's such an issue. If was the only slow stretch for miles or on a motorway but it's not. Only the A31 West bound is a fast stretch and it wouldn't take more than a few minutes extra to negotiate the junction a safe speed till they fix it properly and probably reduce the limit anyway!
extending the 50 mph zone by a couple of miles would slow people down through a complicated junction, allowing them more time to get in the right lane instead of haring through at 70 or 80. I don't understand why that's such an issue. If was the only slow stretch for miles or on a motorway but it's not. Only the A31 West bound is a fast stretch and it wouldn't take more than a few minutes extra to negotiate the junction a safe speed till they fix it properly and probably reduce the limit anyway! Miss Opinionated

7:59am Wed 8 Jan 14

cheeriedriteup says...

Street lights on that stretch would be a start, light it up like a motorway, flashing signs over head pre- warning the idiots which lane to be in, how about an electrical device located in the street lamps that totally knock out mobile phone signals temporarily , if we can levitate some distractions we are half way to solving this
Street lights on that stretch would be a start, light it up like a motorway, flashing signs over head pre- warning the idiots which lane to be in, how about an electrical device located in the street lamps that totally knock out mobile phone signals temporarily , if we can levitate some distractions we are half way to solving this cheeriedriteup

8:06am Wed 8 Jan 14

Chris the plumber says...

Miss Opinionated wrote:
extending the 50 mph zone by a couple of miles would slow people down through a complicated junction, allowing them more time to get in the right lane instead of haring through at 70 or 80.

I don't understand why that's such an issue. If was the only slow stretch for miles or on a motorway but it's not. Only the A31 West bound is a fast stretch and it wouldn't take more than a few minutes extra to negotiate the junction a safe speed till they fix it properly and probably reduce the limit anyway!
indeed and it will work, just look at the A31 to ferndown was 70 and now is 50 and as a regular user I would guess that well over 50% of driver stick to it
which make that road a lot safer for traffic turning onto the road..
[quote][p][bold]Miss Opinionated[/bold] wrote: extending the 50 mph zone by a couple of miles would slow people down through a complicated junction, allowing them more time to get in the right lane instead of haring through at 70 or 80. I don't understand why that's such an issue. If was the only slow stretch for miles or on a motorway but it's not. Only the A31 West bound is a fast stretch and it wouldn't take more than a few minutes extra to negotiate the junction a safe speed till they fix it properly and probably reduce the limit anyway![/p][/quote]indeed and it will work, just look at the A31 to ferndown was 70 and now is 50 and as a regular user I would guess that well over 50% of driver stick to it which make that road a lot safer for traffic turning onto the road.. Chris the plumber

8:09am Wed 8 Jan 14

mudeford7 says...

Bring the speed limit down and put some cameras in and plenty of notices saying cameras are in place. Its works on the A3 as you approach Tolworth. The figures quoted to alter the layout seems excessive to change some speed signs and install cameras. 3 % of accidents is too many it should be Zero %
Bring the speed limit down and put some cameras in and plenty of notices saying cameras are in place. Its works on the A3 as you approach Tolworth. The figures quoted to alter the layout seems excessive to change some speed signs and install cameras. 3 % of accidents is too many it should be Zero % mudeford7

8:14am Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

mudeford7 wrote:
Bring the speed limit down and put some cameras in and plenty of notices saying cameras are in place. Its works on the A3 as you approach Tolworth. The figures quoted to alter the layout seems excessive to change some speed signs and install cameras. 3 % of accidents is too many it should be Zero %
Someone else wanting ZERO. In the real world, we will only have zero by closing roads. We need credible and achievable objectives based on whether or not here is a specific problem to solve and according to the data / evidence there is not.
[quote][p][bold]mudeford7[/bold] wrote: Bring the speed limit down and put some cameras in and plenty of notices saying cameras are in place. Its works on the A3 as you approach Tolworth. The figures quoted to alter the layout seems excessive to change some speed signs and install cameras. 3 % of accidents is too many it should be Zero %[/p][/quote]Someone else wanting ZERO. In the real world, we will only have zero by closing roads. We need credible and achievable objectives based on whether or not here is a specific problem to solve and according to the data / evidence there is not. dorsetspeed

9:15am Wed 8 Jan 14

High Treason says...

Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive. High Treason

9:19am Wed 8 Jan 14

Chris the plumber says...

No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy.
No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy. Chris the plumber

9:25am Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
"Accidents" usually have a number of contributing factors. If I wanted to reduce "accidents", I would make sure that there was not something more effective I could do before using valuable resources to target something that was only a factor in 3% of them. Yes boy racers are a significant problem, but the determined, deliberate and dangerous speeders who cause the accidents can easily avoid being caught by yellow boxes and stripy vans in predicable positions. And as I have pointed out we have had widespread and ridiculous limit reductions in Dorset in the last 3 years and deaths have almost tripled.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]"Accidents" usually have a number of contributing factors. If I wanted to reduce "accidents", I would make sure that there was not something more effective I could do before using valuable resources to target something that was only a factor in 3% of them. Yes boy racers are a significant problem, but the determined, deliberate and dangerous speeders who cause the accidents can easily avoid being caught by yellow boxes and stripy vans in predicable positions. And as I have pointed out we have had widespread and ridiculous limit reductions in Dorset in the last 3 years and deaths have almost tripled. dorsetspeed

9:29am Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy.
You seemed to want a 30 limit on the A31 which is almost as ridiculous. My primary interest beyond anything else is road safety. It is certainly a problem that the law has (due to financial motivations) taken us away from this.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy.[/p][/quote]You seemed to want a 30 limit on the A31 which is almost as ridiculous. My primary interest beyond anything else is road safety. It is certainly a problem that the law has (due to financial motivations) taken us away from this. dorsetspeed

9:29am Wed 8 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said. Hessenford

9:29am Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy.
You seemed to want a 30 limit on the A31 which is almost as ridiculous. My primary interest beyond anything else is road safety. It is certainly a problem that the law has (due to financial motivations) taken us away from this.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy.[/p][/quote]You seemed to want a 30 limit on the A31 which is almost as ridiculous. My primary interest beyond anything else is road safety. It is certainly a problem that the law has (due to financial motivations) taken us away from this. dorsetspeed

9:31am Wed 8 Jan 14

Annonymous85 says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
carol_uk wrote: it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling
What rubbish all the injuries caused on this length of road are caused by speed... if the van that ran over poor Jade was doing 30 he would have had time to stop but he was allowed by law to do 70 and he could not stop. accidents were not always caused by excessive speed but the speed you are driving at has a big impact on any injuries you sustain. Hit a car at 30 mph and a you get a dent or two hit the same car at 70 and you may well die.. Now tell me speed dos`nt matter.
The Volvo car that was involved in the accident was not allowed to travel at 70mph - the driver was disqualified from driving and wasn't insured. He then failed to stop at the scene of an accident and went on to try and cover his tracks. How would a 50mph have changed things other than adding a speeding offence to the list of his offences?
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carol_uk[/bold] wrote: it wont work, only 2 of the accidents reported there were down to speed, its the careless drivers,, i use the road all the time and have seen many accidents even when the traffic is crawling[/p][/quote]What rubbish all the injuries caused on this length of road are caused by speed... if the van that ran over poor Jade was doing 30 he would have had time to stop but he was allowed by law to do 70 and he could not stop. accidents were not always caused by excessive speed but the speed you are driving at has a big impact on any injuries you sustain. Hit a car at 30 mph and a you get a dent or two hit the same car at 70 and you may well die.. Now tell me speed dos`nt matter.[/p][/quote]The Volvo car that was involved in the accident was not allowed to travel at 70mph - the driver was disqualified from driving and wasn't insured. He then failed to stop at the scene of an accident and went on to try and cover his tracks. How would a 50mph have changed things other than adding a speeding offence to the list of his offences? Annonymous85

9:41am Wed 8 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

mudeford7 wrote:
Bring the speed limit down and put some cameras in and plenty of notices saying cameras are in place. Its works on the A3 as you approach Tolworth. The figures quoted to alter the layout seems excessive to change some speed signs and install cameras. 3 % of accidents is too many it should be Zero %
Whilst I am a bit surprised this campaign is still being pursued, this sums up most of the naive thinking quite well. Because once again we have to ask - How would bringing down the speed limit and installing cameras prevent bad and illegal drivers from continuing to cause mayhem here? Because neither type of driver will take any notice of a new lower speed limit and the illegal ones certainly have no fear of detection by any roadside camera.

The majority of perfectly capable drivers using this stretch of road without incident would naturally observe any reduced speed limit, but they are NOT the dangerous ones causing the accidents .Common sense has already prevailed in this matter, let us not be distracted any longer and concentrate on ways of getting the true culprits - not pointlessly targeting the good guys!
[quote][p][bold]mudeford7[/bold] wrote: Bring the speed limit down and put some cameras in and plenty of notices saying cameras are in place. Its works on the A3 as you approach Tolworth. The figures quoted to alter the layout seems excessive to change some speed signs and install cameras. 3 % of accidents is too many it should be Zero %[/p][/quote]Whilst I am a bit surprised this campaign is still being pursued, this sums up most of the naive thinking quite well. Because once again we have to ask - How would bringing down the speed limit and installing cameras prevent bad and illegal drivers from continuing to cause mayhem here? Because neither type of driver will take any notice of a new lower speed limit and the illegal ones certainly have no fear of detection by any roadside camera. The majority of perfectly capable drivers using this stretch of road without incident would naturally observe any reduced speed limit, but they are NOT the dangerous ones causing the accidents .Common sense has already prevailed in this matter, let us not be distracted any longer and concentrate on ways of getting the true culprits - not pointlessly targeting the good guys! muscliffman

9:43am Wed 8 Jan 14

Wesoblind says...

Just look at f1, they drive alot faster, sometimes only feet apart, why dont they crash every 5 seconds? because they are talented drivers, know the road layout and can predict the other cars actions. This to me says speed is not the biggest factor its;

Driver error/ability

road layout

I can predict good drivers actions so can be safe around them in the same way i can predict bad drivers actions (every day just by the way people drive i can predict when they are going to cut me up etc)

If road layouts were the same for every type of junction, sliproad, roundabout etc then people would have less trouble negotiating them.

Simple answer, you only get a crash when a bad driver is envolved!

Ive been driving 14 years and alot of you wold think i drive too fast too agressive and a bit of a boy racer but have never crashed. The closest ive ever come was a woman pulling onto a 70 mph road from stationary without looking infront of me.
You could say if i wasnt doing 70 then if there was a collision it would not have been as bad but i say if she wasent a rubbish driver there would have been no risk of an accident at all so dont remove the speed remove the idiot!!!
Just look at f1, they drive alot faster, sometimes only feet apart, why dont they crash every 5 seconds? because they are talented drivers, know the road layout and can predict the other cars actions. This to me says speed is not the biggest factor its; Driver error/ability road layout I can predict good drivers actions so can be safe around them in the same way i can predict bad drivers actions (every day just by the way people drive i can predict when they are going to cut me up etc) If road layouts were the same for every type of junction, sliproad, roundabout etc then people would have less trouble negotiating them. Simple answer, you only get a crash when a bad driver is envolved! Ive been driving 14 years and alot of you wold think i drive too fast too agressive and a bit of a boy racer but have never crashed. The closest ive ever come was a woman pulling onto a 70 mph road from stationary without looking infront of me. You could say if i wasnt doing 70 then if there was a collision it would not have been as bad but i say if she wasent a rubbish driver there would have been no risk of an accident at all so dont remove the speed remove the idiot!!! Wesoblind

10:06am Wed 8 Jan 14

suzigirl says...

Learner moped/scooter riders should not be allowed on that stretch of road or any dual carriageway - they have not got the experience or speed to get out of trouble - can Jade's parents/family let her rest in peace now!
Learner moped/scooter riders should not be allowed on that stretch of road or any dual carriageway - they have not got the experience or speed to get out of trouble - can Jade's parents/family let her rest in peace now! suzigirl

11:06am Wed 8 Jan 14

speedy231278 says...

Speed only kills in conjunction with poor driving, sometimes exacerbated by poor road layouts. A reduced speed limit will not make any difference. Colliding with a vehicle travelling at 30mph when you are doing 60 or 70 is still going to have exactly the same result. Perhaps it is time to remove solo vehicles that cannot manage the unrestricted speed limit of at least a single carriageway road from use outside of towns or something? As a motorcyclist of almost 20 years I would never, and have never even dreamt of riding a 50cc scooter/moped as in my opinion they are too slow and too vulnerable to other road users. They make sense in built-up areas where you can rarely reach the speed limit, but elsewhere they usually seem to get bullied by impatient car drivers.
Speed only kills in conjunction with poor driving, sometimes exacerbated by poor road layouts. A reduced speed limit will not make any difference. Colliding with a vehicle travelling at 30mph when you are doing 60 or 70 is still going to have exactly the same result. Perhaps it is time to remove solo vehicles that cannot manage the unrestricted speed limit of at least a single carriageway road from use outside of towns or something? As a motorcyclist of almost 20 years I would never, and have never even dreamt of riding a 50cc scooter/moped as in my opinion they are too slow and too vulnerable to other road users. They make sense in built-up areas where you can rarely reach the speed limit, but elsewhere they usually seem to get bullied by impatient car drivers. speedy231278

11:21am Wed 8 Jan 14

High Treason says...

Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times? High Treason

11:36am Wed 8 Jan 14

nosuchluck54 says...

Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
Of course a classic example of insulting others that disagree with you can be read on the thread regarding the naming and shaming of drink drivers yesterday.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]Of course a classic example of insulting others that disagree with you can be read on the thread regarding the naming and shaming of drink drivers yesterday. nosuchluck54

11:40am Wed 8 Jan 14

Derf says...

The slower the road speed, the less of a gap between vehicles (one of the reasons rush hour variable speed limits were introduced on commuter motorways (M25, M42 etc) - to increase road capacity)

How does that make it easier for vehicles to join the dual carriageway from slip roads?
The slower the road speed, the less of a gap between vehicles (one of the reasons rush hour variable speed limits were introduced on commuter motorways (M25, M42 etc) - to increase road capacity) How does that make it easier for vehicles to join the dual carriageway from slip roads? Derf

12:07pm Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
What increase in speeds? Limits are only decreasing as vehicles and roads get better. Our fastest roads are the safest. Reaction time is the same whatever the speed is, it is reaction distance that changes. Most drivers manage to deal with this by looking further ahead as their speed increases
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]What increase in speeds? Limits are only decreasing as vehicles and roads get better. Our fastest roads are the safest. Reaction time is the same whatever the speed is, it is reaction distance that changes. Most drivers manage to deal with this by looking further ahead as their speed increases dorsetspeed

12:43pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Tig says...

Without wishing to cause offence to Jade's family, the Echo headline "...collect thousands of signatures...." appears to be incorrect, as the article starts by saying that they've actually collected just over a thousand.
.
The problem here is that the driver that hit Jade was disqualified and so didn't stop. We don't know what speed he was going, or why he wasn't paying attention to the road and vehicles around him. She was on a moped he was in a big car and so the outcome would have been the same whatever the speed. If he'd stopped it's been said that he would have prevented other vehicles from running over her. Even if he'd been doing 20mph he wouldn't have stopped because he didn't want to get caught.
.
Moving on from that dreadful accident, the problem here is the road layout. The petrol station shouldn't have an exit onto a dual carriageway at a point where people are also trying to change lanes. Some people clearly have no idea which lane they should be in either.
.
It's always going to be difficult to pull out into traffic there, however slowly it's moving. I saw a near-miss when an old lady in an old-fashioned mini pulled out straight in front of a van and didn't have the engine capacity (or, by the look of it, the driving ability) to go faster than about 15 miles an hour even when she got onto the carriageway. Even if the van had been doing 30mph or less she'd still have pulled out and he still would have had to swerve to avoid her, because he was so close when she chose to set off. This was down to driver error - hers.
.
Speed is rarely a factor, it's 'inappropriate speed' and a lack of competent driving skills, but the two are, of course, somewhat interlinked. The only way you will ever stop all accidents is to close a road completely. Only today the Echo has reported on a 4-car crash on the Wessex Way in rush hour - yet another rush hour crash on there and yet they lowered the speed limit to 40. That cannot be down to speed, as it's impossible to get above about 15-20 mph at rush hour. So what are you going to do about that? Make the speed limit 5 miles per hour? Close the road? There seem to have been more accidents on there since the lowered limit than there were before, but of course the council wouldn't admit that.
.
It's way too easy to keep chanting the simplistic 'speed kills mantra', but it isn't the solution. It's just a sticking plaster to appease those who just cannot understand that the solution is not as simple as lowering speed limits. Driver education, better signage and/or closure of dangerous junctions all have to be taken into account too.
.
Finally, let's just ask a question re the A31. Who are the technically qualified experts here, the general public or The Highways Agency? Personally I'd rather put my trust in the latter, because they have the actual data to prove their arguments. Whilst, Jade's family mean well, they are coming at this from a purely emotive point of view.
Without wishing to cause offence to Jade's family, the Echo headline "...collect thousands of signatures...." appears to be incorrect, as the article starts by saying that they've actually collected just over a thousand. . The problem here is that the driver that hit Jade was disqualified and so didn't stop. We don't know what speed he was going, or why he wasn't paying attention to the road and vehicles around him. She was on a moped he was in a big car and so the outcome would have been the same whatever the speed. If he'd stopped it's been said that he would have prevented other vehicles from running over her. Even if he'd been doing 20mph he wouldn't have stopped because he didn't want to get caught. . Moving on from that dreadful accident, the problem here is the road layout. The petrol station shouldn't have an exit onto a dual carriageway at a point where people are also trying to change lanes. Some people clearly have no idea which lane they should be in either. . It's always going to be difficult to pull out into traffic there, however slowly it's moving. I saw a near-miss when an old lady in an old-fashioned mini pulled out straight in front of a van and didn't have the engine capacity (or, by the look of it, the driving ability) to go faster than about 15 miles an hour even when she got onto the carriageway. Even if the van had been doing 30mph or less she'd still have pulled out and he still would have had to swerve to avoid her, because he was so close when she chose to set off. This was down to driver error - hers. . Speed is rarely a factor, it's 'inappropriate speed' and a lack of competent driving skills, but the two are, of course, somewhat interlinked. The only way you will ever stop all accidents is to close a road completely. Only today the Echo has reported on a 4-car crash on the Wessex Way in rush hour - yet another rush hour crash on there and yet they lowered the speed limit to 40. That cannot be down to speed, as it's impossible to get above about 15-20 mph at rush hour. So what are you going to do about that? Make the speed limit 5 miles per hour? Close the road? There seem to have been more accidents on there since the lowered limit than there were before, but of course the council wouldn't admit that. . It's way too easy to keep chanting the simplistic 'speed kills mantra', but it isn't the solution. It's just a sticking plaster to appease those who just cannot understand that the solution is not as simple as lowering speed limits. Driver education, better signage and/or closure of dangerous junctions all have to be taken into account too. . Finally, let's just ask a question re the A31. Who are the technically qualified experts here, the general public or The Highways Agency? Personally I'd rather put my trust in the latter, because they have the actual data to prove their arguments. Whilst, Jade's family mean well, they are coming at this from a purely emotive point of view. Tig

1:08pm Wed 8 Jan 14

eaststandman says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy.
You seemed to want a 30 limit on the A31 which is almost as ridiculous. My primary interest beyond anything else is road safety. It is certainly a problem that the law has (due to financial motivations) taken us away from this.
You just want to get from your house to work asap.

The major problem of this unique piece of road is simple. The dept of transport built a 70mph road through the centre of a mediaeval market town. The two half's of some of the adjoining roads are now north and south of the A31. The residents of Ringwood suffer most from this.
I'm pretty certain most on here live in one place and work elsewhere, so they need to rethink their own lives.
What a self centred world we all live in.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: No one is suggesting a Zero speed limit that is just silly but a reasonable one that will save lives and injury... I wonder if Dorset Speed has something to do with the website that encourages speeding, law breaking and anti social driving ... or is that just fantasy.[/p][/quote]You seemed to want a 30 limit on the A31 which is almost as ridiculous. My primary interest beyond anything else is road safety. It is certainly a problem that the law has (due to financial motivations) taken us away from this.[/p][/quote]You just want to get from your house to work asap. The major problem of this unique piece of road is simple. The dept of transport built a 70mph road through the centre of a mediaeval market town. The two half's of some of the adjoining roads are now north and south of the A31. The residents of Ringwood suffer most from this. I'm pretty certain most on here live in one place and work elsewhere, so they need to rethink their own lives. What a self centred world we all live in. eaststandman

1:16pm Wed 8 Jan 14

BarrHumbug says...

I think they'd do better campaigning to raise awareness of the importance of wearing good quality reflective motorcycle clothing and correctly fitted helmets, especially amongst young slow moving moped riders?
I think they'd do better campaigning to raise awareness of the importance of wearing good quality reflective motorcycle clothing and correctly fitted helmets, especially amongst young slow moving moped riders? BarrHumbug

1:55pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
What increase in speeds, speed limits have been decreasing because of the do gooders, motorway and duel carriageway speeds haven't gone up for years, car braking systems are far better than 40 years ago, speed has nothing to do with it, target bad driving is the way to go.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]What increase in speeds, speed limits have been decreasing because of the do gooders, motorway and duel carriageway speeds haven't gone up for years, car braking systems are far better than 40 years ago, speed has nothing to do with it, target bad driving is the way to go. Hessenford

1:56pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
Of course a classic example of insulting others that disagree with you can be read on the thread regarding the naming and shaming of drink drivers yesterday.
You really do need to get out more.
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]Of course a classic example of insulting others that disagree with you can be read on the thread regarding the naming and shaming of drink drivers yesterday.[/p][/quote]You really do need to get out more. Hessenford

1:58pm Wed 8 Jan 14

skydriver says...

Add my comment to your campaign, your quite right why do we have some half wit in government telling the people of our are what we can and can't have.
Hammond came here just once, and that's enough to make an informed decision. Yet again another Mp with his head in the sand.
I support your quest for lower speed.
Add my comment to your campaign, your quite right why do we have some half wit in government telling the people of our are what we can and can't have. Hammond came here just once, and that's enough to make an informed decision. Yet again another Mp with his head in the sand. I support your quest for lower speed. skydriver

3:59pm Wed 8 Jan 14

eaststandman says...

Why is it not 70mph on wessex way? Or the Christchurch by-pass? Or outside the hospital (that's a dual carriageway)? No, I've got a better idea, lets make it 70mph on any dual carriageway in a built up area and just blame it on anyone attempting to get on to it !
They don't even allow you to do 70mph when joining the M3 from the M25 to make the junction safer and allow joiners to make that smooth transition.
Why is it not 70mph on wessex way? Or the Christchurch by-pass? Or outside the hospital (that's a dual carriageway)? No, I've got a better idea, lets make it 70mph on any dual carriageway in a built up area and just blame it on anyone attempting to get on to it ! They don't even allow you to do 70mph when joining the M3 from the M25 to make the junction safer and allow joiners to make that smooth transition. eaststandman

5:16pm Wed 8 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again.
We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.
Lets hope they don't ask you for help then.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again. We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.[/p][/quote]Lets hope they don't ask you for help then. tbpoole

5:19pm Wed 8 Jan 14

madras says...

High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...)

Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new

What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...) Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new What has increased substantially is volume of traffic... madras

6:39pm Wed 8 Jan 14

EGHH says...

The road needs improving and not a reduction in the speed limit. The driver concerned was not fit to drive so even if it was a 60 or 50 mph road there would have been an accident with dire consequences.
The road needs improving and not a reduction in the speed limit. The driver concerned was not fit to drive so even if it was a 60 or 50 mph road there would have been an accident with dire consequences. EGHH

6:53pm Wed 8 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

madras wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...)

Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new

What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...
What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider.

The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.
[quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...) Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...[/p][/quote]What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider. The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip. tbpoole

7:19pm Wed 8 Jan 14

60plus says...

Having travelled this road tonight doing 20miles per hour the problem seems to be their are to many slip roads they need to close the one by the restaurant and move the entrance to the garage.this evening a car came from the slip road to the outside lane the decided he was in the wrong lane to go to Bournemouth and cut back that's what causes accidents.
Having travelled this road tonight doing 20miles per hour the problem seems to be their are to many slip roads they need to close the one by the restaurant and move the entrance to the garage.this evening a car came from the slip road to the outside lane the decided he was in the wrong lane to go to Bournemouth and cut back that's what causes accidents. 60plus

7:53pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Rainydayman says...

There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced.

I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition.

Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?
There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced. I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition. Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life? Rainydayman

7:58pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Rainydayman says...

Sorry, meant to say the 1/2 mile stretch westbound after the Ringwood flyover and before the Ashley Heat roundabout.
Sorry, meant to say the 1/2 mile stretch westbound after the Ringwood flyover and before the Ashley Heat roundabout. Rainydayman

8:33pm Wed 8 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rainydayman wrote:
There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced.

I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition.

Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?
errr, 1 good reason like:

As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again.
We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.
[quote][p][bold]Rainydayman[/bold] wrote: There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced. I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition. Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?[/p][/quote]errr, 1 good reason like: As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again. We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE. dorsetspeed

9:09pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

tbpoole wrote:
madras wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...)

Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new

What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...
What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider.

The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.
Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway.
Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed.
There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic.
There is no conflict, just bad driving.
Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...) Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...[/p][/quote]What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider. The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.[/p][/quote]Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway. Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed. There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic. There is no conflict, just bad driving. Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them. Hessenford

10:07pm Wed 8 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
madras wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...)

Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new

What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...
What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider.

The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.
Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway.
Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed.
There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic.
There is no conflict, just bad driving.
Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them.
Wrong. 70mph is the limit not a target and vehicles joining the main road may not have sufficient road length to build up speed to this maximum. Main road drivers should take account of vehicles entering from the on slip and either move over or adjust their speed accordingly to allow them to enter safely. The onus is on both sets of drivers to behave/drive sensibly and courteously. Failure to do so probably led to the tragic event highlighted.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...) Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...[/p][/quote]What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider. The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.[/p][/quote]Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway. Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed. There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic. There is no conflict, just bad driving. Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them.[/p][/quote]Wrong. 70mph is the limit not a target and vehicles joining the main road may not have sufficient road length to build up speed to this maximum. Main road drivers should take account of vehicles entering from the on slip and either move over or adjust their speed accordingly to allow them to enter safely. The onus is on both sets of drivers to behave/drive sensibly and courteously. Failure to do so probably led to the tragic event highlighted. tbpoole

10:21pm Wed 8 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rainydayman wrote:
There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced.

I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition.

Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?
errr, 1 good reason like:

As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again.
We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.
The speed limit reduction work (if it had proceeded) would have been funded by the Highways Agency. The Police are funded through an entirely different pot so there is no way this money would have been diverted to pay for extra traffic cops. Plus £1.7 million would have only paid for 2 to 3 years' worth of traffic policing - how would you have paid for it after that? Where is the evidence or robust evaluation that this solution would have any more impact on reducing casualties than reducing the speed limit? Or any other solution, come to that? It is time to stop spouting your nonsense!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainydayman[/bold] wrote: There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced. I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition. Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?[/p][/quote]errr, 1 good reason like: As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again. We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.[/p][/quote]The speed limit reduction work (if it had proceeded) would have been funded by the Highways Agency. The Police are funded through an entirely different pot so there is no way this money would have been diverted to pay for extra traffic cops. Plus £1.7 million would have only paid for 2 to 3 years' worth of traffic policing - how would you have paid for it after that? Where is the evidence or robust evaluation that this solution would have any more impact on reducing casualties than reducing the speed limit? Or any other solution, come to that? It is time to stop spouting your nonsense! tbpoole

11:16pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
madras wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...)

Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new

What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...
What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider.

The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.
Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway.
Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed.
There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic.
There is no conflict, just bad driving.
Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them.
Wrong. 70mph is the limit not a target and vehicles joining the main road may not have sufficient road length to build up speed to this maximum. Main road drivers should take account of vehicles entering from the on slip and either move over or adjust their speed accordingly to allow them to enter safely. The onus is on both sets of drivers to behave/drive sensibly and courteously. Failure to do so probably led to the tragic event highlighted.
Get with in the real world, if it says 70mph that's what most people will do and legally so.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...) Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...[/p][/quote]What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider. The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.[/p][/quote]Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway. Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed. There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic. There is no conflict, just bad driving. Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them.[/p][/quote]Wrong. 70mph is the limit not a target and vehicles joining the main road may not have sufficient road length to build up speed to this maximum. Main road drivers should take account of vehicles entering from the on slip and either move over or adjust their speed accordingly to allow them to enter safely. The onus is on both sets of drivers to behave/drive sensibly and courteously. Failure to do so probably led to the tragic event highlighted.[/p][/quote]Get with in the real world, if it says 70mph that's what most people will do and legally so. Hessenford

11:18pm Wed 8 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
madras wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
High Treason wrote:
Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.
Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn.
Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster.
Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology.
Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas.
Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.
".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster"
Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?
And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...)

Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new

What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...
What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider.

The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.
Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway.
Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed.
There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic.
There is no conflict, just bad driving.
Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them.
Wrong. 70mph is the limit not a target and vehicles joining the main road may not have sufficient road length to build up speed to this maximum. Main road drivers should take account of vehicles entering from the on slip and either move over or adjust their speed accordingly to allow them to enter safely. The onus is on both sets of drivers to behave/drive sensibly and courteously. Failure to do so probably led to the tragic event highlighted.
Get with in the real world, if it says 70mph that's what most people will do and legally so.
That's why drivers like you will continue to have crashes here. Irresponsible. Road hogs all of them.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madras[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: Once again the boy racers who think they are from the Institute Of Advanced Motorists claim speed is not the problem in accidents. The Road Research Laboratory proves that the faster you go the more damage there is. Not rocket science is it? but as most of theses people are blinkered I am amazed they can see to drive.[/p][/quote]Why insult everyone who disagrees with your opinion and call them boy racers, drivers who manage to drive safely at the higher speed limits and have no accidents are the ones who get fed up with the calls to lower limits at every turn. Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster. Roads that now have 50mph limits were built for 70mph limits years ago when car braking systems were nothing like today's technology. Easy fix to reduce limits when the real problem is the road layout in certain areas. Thanks for your information that the faster you go the more damage there is, I would never have known that had you not said.[/p][/quote]".Duel Carriageways and motorways were built for a reason, to move people faster" Human reactions have not kept up with the increase in speeds. Even the best drivers have less time to react at a higher speed or do you really believe the existing fast 70 mph drivers somehow have quicker reaction times?[/p][/quote]And to counter your argument I would suggest that so many other aspects of motoring have improved significantly (brakes, steering, visibility, handling...) Speed has not increased significantly - 70 mph on a dual (not dual - meaning two) carriageway is nothing new What has increased substantially is volume of traffic...[/p][/quote]What you are talking about is someone cocconed in their metal box protected from serious injury in the event of a crash, what Jade's parents are talking about is protecting a very vulnerable scooter rider. The problem here is the differential in speeds between drivers who could have driven over 200 miles at 70mph plus without stopping once coming into conflict with much slower drivers coming on via the on slip.[/p][/quote]Slip roads are there to allow people to build up speed when joining fast moving traffic, if drivers are traveling at the legal 70mph they shouldn't come into contact with slower traffic unless they drive into the slip road or the driver joining has not built up sufficient speed to join the carriageway. Stop blaming drivers who are keeping to the limit of 70mph when more often than not it the joining traffic who are to blame for not building up the correct speed. There is nothing wrong with the 70mph speed limit, others need to learn to build up speed rather than just pulling out into faster moving traffic. There is no conflict, just bad driving. Jade Clarks demise was very sad and I feel for her family but perhaps its time to ban any vehicle from some of these roads if they are unable to get up to the right speed to join them.[/p][/quote]Wrong. 70mph is the limit not a target and vehicles joining the main road may not have sufficient road length to build up speed to this maximum. Main road drivers should take account of vehicles entering from the on slip and either move over or adjust their speed accordingly to allow them to enter safely. The onus is on both sets of drivers to behave/drive sensibly and courteously. Failure to do so probably led to the tragic event highlighted.[/p][/quote]Get with in the real world, if it says 70mph that's what most people will do and legally so.[/p][/quote]That's why drivers like you will continue to have crashes here. Irresponsible. Road hogs all of them. tbpoole

7:49am Thu 9 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, "That's why drivers like you will continue to have crashes here. Irresponsible. Road hogs all of them." You seem to be avoiding the facts again. Speed is a factor in a negligable number of accidents here, about 3%. I doubt you would get that lower whatever you did.
tbpoole, "That's why drivers like you will continue to have crashes here. Irresponsible. Road hogs all of them." You seem to be avoiding the facts again. Speed is a factor in a negligable number of accidents here, about 3%. I doubt you would get that lower whatever you did. dorsetspeed

8:10am Thu 9 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc).

I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE.

I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled.
tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc). I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE. I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled. dorsetspeed

6:42pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Rainydayman says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rainydayman wrote:
There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced.

I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition.

Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?
errr, 1 good reason like:

As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again.
We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The basis for Mr Hammond’s decision has been called into question, as have the costs of implementing speed controls – hence my comments that there are no good reasons not to reduce the limit.

I drive this road most weekdays. In my opinion the section from the Ringwood flyover to the Ashley Heath roundabout is dangerous and that slowing traffic down will aid flow as well as safety.

There are only two ways this will be looked at thoroughly. The first is pressure from public opinion, the second is as a result of another, even more serious accident.

I know which I prefer.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainydayman[/bold] wrote: There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced. I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition. Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?[/p][/quote]errr, 1 good reason like: As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again. We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.[/p][/quote]Thanks for taking the time to comment. The basis for Mr Hammond’s decision has been called into question, as have the costs of implementing speed controls – hence my comments that there are no good reasons not to reduce the limit. I drive this road most weekdays. In my opinion the section from the Ringwood flyover to the Ashley Heath roundabout is dangerous and that slowing traffic down will aid flow as well as safety. There are only two ways this will be looked at thoroughly. The first is pressure from public opinion, the second is as a result of another, even more serious accident. I know which I prefer. Rainydayman

8:09pm Thu 9 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rainydayman wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rainydayman wrote:
There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced.

I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition.

Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?
errr, 1 good reason like:

As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again.
We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The basis for Mr Hammond’s decision has been called into question, as have the costs of implementing speed controls – hence my comments that there are no good reasons not to reduce the limit.

I drive this road most weekdays. In my opinion the section from the Ringwood flyover to the Ashley Heath roundabout is dangerous and that slowing traffic down will aid flow as well as safety.

There are only two ways this will be looked at thoroughly. The first is pressure from public opinion, the second is as a result of another, even more serious accident.

I know which I prefer.
I'm sorry but the evidence is that there simply is not a particular problem with this stretch of road, and if there was, reducing the limit would not solve that problem, but it would prevent those resources from being used competently which is DANGEROUS.
[quote][p][bold]Rainydayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainydayman[/bold] wrote: There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced. I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition. Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?[/p][/quote]errr, 1 good reason like: As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again. We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.[/p][/quote]Thanks for taking the time to comment. The basis for Mr Hammond’s decision has been called into question, as have the costs of implementing speed controls – hence my comments that there are no good reasons not to reduce the limit. I drive this road most weekdays. In my opinion the section from the Ringwood flyover to the Ashley Heath roundabout is dangerous and that slowing traffic down will aid flow as well as safety. There are only two ways this will be looked at thoroughly. The first is pressure from public opinion, the second is as a result of another, even more serious accident. I know which I prefer.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but the evidence is that there simply is not a particular problem with this stretch of road, and if there was, reducing the limit would not solve that problem, but it would prevent those resources from being used competently which is DANGEROUS. dorsetspeed

7:20am Fri 10 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rainydayman wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rainydayman wrote:
There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced.

I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition.

Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?
errr, 1 good reason like:

As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again.
We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The basis for Mr Hammond’s decision has been called into question, as have the costs of implementing speed controls – hence my comments that there are no good reasons not to reduce the limit.

I drive this road most weekdays. In my opinion the section from the Ringwood flyover to the Ashley Heath roundabout is dangerous and that slowing traffic down will aid flow as well as safety.

There are only two ways this will be looked at thoroughly. The first is pressure from public opinion, the second is as a result of another, even more serious accident.

I know which I prefer.
I'm sorry but the evidence is that there simply is not a particular problem with this stretch of road, and if there was, reducing the limit would not solve that problem, but it would prevent those resources from being used competently which is DANGEROUS.
There evidently is a problem here otherwise there wouldn't be this ongoing campaign would there? Even if it only saved two casualties - I'm pretty certain it would save more - it would also reduce the amount of significant tailbacks that occur each time there is an incident, even if no-one was injured each time. Reducing the limit would not be DANGEROUS - there is no evidence for that.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainydayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rainydayman[/bold] wrote: There is so much genuine concern about this 1/2 mile stretch of road but in all the comments here I can't see one good reason why the speed limit should not be reduced. I think we should err on the side of caution and therefore I'll be adding my name to the petition. Really, what difference would it make to a journey? 30 seconds...perhaps a minute? Perhaps a life?[/p][/quote]errr, 1 good reason like: As is plainly obvious and as everyone seems to agree in this and previous news items, the speed limit is not the issue here. But it’s worse than that. The speed limit reduction trial was going to cost £1.7milion. If you spend that money on the wrong solution it is no longer available for the right solution. That amount of cash could put some proper traffic cops on the road which really might have prevented Jades death and reduce the chances of it happening again. We must not have road safety projects determined by the emotional aftermath of individual random events by those who know little about road safety (and that includes councillors). We must have them determined by professional process with a proper evaluation and comparison of the cost efficiency, anything else will COSTS LIVES. We have had an obsession with speed limits and enforcements in Dorset in recent years and road deaths have almost tripled. IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS NONSENSE.[/p][/quote]Thanks for taking the time to comment. The basis for Mr Hammond’s decision has been called into question, as have the costs of implementing speed controls – hence my comments that there are no good reasons not to reduce the limit. I drive this road most weekdays. In my opinion the section from the Ringwood flyover to the Ashley Heath roundabout is dangerous and that slowing traffic down will aid flow as well as safety. There are only two ways this will be looked at thoroughly. The first is pressure from public opinion, the second is as a result of another, even more serious accident. I know which I prefer.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but the evidence is that there simply is not a particular problem with this stretch of road, and if there was, reducing the limit would not solve that problem, but it would prevent those resources from being used competently which is DANGEROUS.[/p][/quote]There evidently is a problem here otherwise there wouldn't be this ongoing campaign would there? Even if it only saved two casualties - I'm pretty certain it would save more - it would also reduce the amount of significant tailbacks that occur each time there is an incident, even if no-one was injured each time. Reducing the limit would not be DANGEROUS - there is no evidence for that. tbpoole

7:26am Fri 10 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc).

I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE.

I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled.
Again you are using rhetoric and anecdotal information to try and prove you know more than the average punter and also to sensationalise your arguments. Show me the hard evidence to prove that road deaths have almost tripled. I think you will find they haven't.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc). I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE. I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled.[/p][/quote]Again you are using rhetoric and anecdotal information to try and prove you know more than the average punter and also to sensationalise your arguments. Show me the hard evidence to prove that road deaths have almost tripled. I think you will find they haven't. tbpoole

7:33am Fri 10 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Just because there is a campaign for something does not mean there is a problem. The HA is looking at accident counts and has concluded that they are not exceptional here. Even if it only saved 2 casualties (and I'm pretty sure it would not) it would be a disaster if spending the money more wisely would have saved 4. It did not say reducing the limit would be dangerous, I said that not using the resources competently is dangerous.
Just because there is a campaign for something does not mean there is a problem. The HA is looking at accident counts and has concluded that they are not exceptional here. Even if it only saved 2 casualties (and I'm pretty sure it would not) it would be a disaster if spending the money more wisely would have saved 4. It did not say reducing the limit would be dangerous, I said that not using the resources competently is dangerous. dorsetspeed

7:45am Fri 10 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc).

I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE.

I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled.
Again you are using rhetoric and anecdotal information to try and prove you know more than the average punter and also to sensationalise your arguments. Show me the hard evidence to prove that road deaths have almost tripled. I think you will find they haven't.
road deaths in Dorset in 2010 = 11
road deaths in Dorset in 2013 = 29
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc). I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE. I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled.[/p][/quote]Again you are using rhetoric and anecdotal information to try and prove you know more than the average punter and also to sensationalise your arguments. Show me the hard evidence to prove that road deaths have almost tripled. I think you will find they haven't.[/p][/quote]road deaths in Dorset in 2010 = 11 road deaths in Dorset in 2013 = 29 dorsetspeed

9:03am Fri 10 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc). I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE. I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled.
Again you are using rhetoric and anecdotal information to try and prove you know more than the average punter and also to sensationalise your arguments. Show me the hard evidence to prove that road deaths have almost tripled. I think you will find they haven't.
road deaths in Dorset in 2010 = 11 road deaths in Dorset in 2013 = 29
Wrong.

http://www.dorsetroa
dsafe.org.uk/images/
Documents/STATS/Web%
20Casualties%205yrs%
202012.pdf

Road deaths 2010 = 18
Road Deaths 2012 = 24
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, in response to your comment in reply to mine, you demonstrate perfectly the stupidity of the current situation. Various agencies working in isolation obviously won't bring best value for money. If they worked together they would identify the most cost effective solutions and make sure they were delivered. 2 to 3 years of proper roads policing would be likely to make the roads safer everywhere by addressing the root cause, bad driving. 100 years of 50 limit instead of 70 on a short stretch of road might not reduce accidents at all, and even if it did, it might just shift them elsewhere as driving unnecessarily slowly increases driver frustration, fatigue, conflict between those who follow speed limits strictly and those who don't etc. And these expensive projects are ongoing all the time (£7 million on Canford Bottom, etc). I do not have the data to prove that proper policing would be more effective than a reduction from 70 to 50 but it is the popular opinion and simple common sense. But my main point is that it is wrong for anyone to put pressure on the authorities to provide one "solution" when they do not understand simple concepts such as that there are different solutions with different effectivenesses, we are resource limited, so the choice of solution must come from proper evaluation of all the factors /solutions and not from emotion and that failure to follow professional process like this will therefore COST LIFE. I point out again that over the past 3 years of absurd speed limit reductions and enforcements, many "engineering improvements", large numbers of Dorset drivers going on courses, etc, road deaths in Dorset have almost tripled.[/p][/quote]Again you are using rhetoric and anecdotal information to try and prove you know more than the average punter and also to sensationalise your arguments. Show me the hard evidence to prove that road deaths have almost tripled. I think you will find they haven't.[/p][/quote]road deaths in Dorset in 2010 = 11 road deaths in Dorset in 2013 = 29[/p][/quote]Wrong. http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/STATS/Web% 20Casualties%205yrs% 202012.pdf Road deaths 2010 = 18 Road Deaths 2012 = 24 tbpoole

9:36am Fri 10 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Thanks tbpoole, my figure for 2010 may be incorrect, I was certain that I had seen it as 11 but cannot find that now, I will try to check it to see if I can be sure. This article shows a "provisional" figure of 11, not sure how they could have got it that wrong: http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/87
70155.Major_drop_in_
Dorset_s_road_fatali
ties/

Yes there were 24 deaths in 2012. There were also 29 deaths in 2013.

In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset.
Thanks tbpoole, my figure for 2010 may be incorrect, I was certain that I had seen it as 11 but cannot find that now, I will try to check it to see if I can be sure. This article shows a "provisional" figure of 11, not sure how they could have got it that wrong: http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/87 70155.Major_drop_in_ Dorset_s_road_fatali ties/ Yes there were 24 deaths in 2012. There were also 29 deaths in 2013. In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset. dorsetspeed

9:46pm Sat 11 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Thanks tbpoole, my figure for 2010 may be incorrect, I was certain that I had seen it as 11 but cannot find that now, I will try to check it to see if I can be sure. This article shows a "provisional" figure of 11, not sure how they could have got it that wrong: http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/87

70155.Major_drop_in_

Dorset_s_road_fatali

ties/

Yes there were 24 deaths in 2012. There were also 29 deaths in 2013.

In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset.
Yes but the same table also shows there were 36 fatals in 2008. So they must be doing something right then? Or can you explain that one away in your usual "bend the statistics to suit my argument" way you usually do?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Thanks tbpoole, my figure for 2010 may be incorrect, I was certain that I had seen it as 11 but cannot find that now, I will try to check it to see if I can be sure. This article shows a "provisional" figure of 11, not sure how they could have got it that wrong: http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/87 70155.Major_drop_in_ Dorset_s_road_fatali ties/ Yes there were 24 deaths in 2012. There were also 29 deaths in 2013. In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset.[/p][/quote]Yes but the same table also shows there were 36 fatals in 2008. So they must be doing something right then? Or can you explain that one away in your usual "bend the statistics to suit my argument" way you usually do? tbpoole

10:13pm Sat 11 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend .
If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend . dorsetspeed

10:56pm Sat 11 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend .
Yes, you did manage to make it suit your argument after all. So the reduction is purely down to national trends but the increase is all the fault of the local Police and Councils. Brilliant !
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend .[/p][/quote]Yes, you did manage to make it suit your argument after all. So the reduction is purely down to national trends but the increase is all the fault of the local Police and Councils. Brilliant ! tbpoole

11:03pm Sat 11 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

Just shows you know nothing about statistics dorsetspeed.
Just shows you know nothing about statistics dorsetspeed. tbpoole

11:23pm Sat 11 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend .
Yes, you did manage to make it suit your argument after all. So the reduction is purely down to national trends but the increase is all the fault of the local Police and Councils. Brilliant !
I did not say the increase was due to Dorset Police. I said "In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset."
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend .[/p][/quote]Yes, you did manage to make it suit your argument after all. So the reduction is purely down to national trends but the increase is all the fault of the local Police and Councils. Brilliant ![/p][/quote]I did not say the increase was due to Dorset Police. I said "In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset." dorsetspeed

12:08am Mon 13 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend .
Yes, you did manage to make it suit your argument after all. So the reduction is purely down to national trends but the increase is all the fault of the local Police and Councils. Brilliant !
I did not say the increase was due to Dorset Police. I said "In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset."
Yes but the overall total casualties have reduced from 3051 to 2415 over 5 years according to these published tables. Hardly the catastrophic increase you keep claiming. Or do people who only get slightly injured not matter in your estimation. In any case if you read what I said I reckoned you would blame the Police and Councils, not just Police. Wriggle out of that one.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: If you attributed the entire reduction of 36 in 2008 to 29 in 2013 to Dorset police (which would be absurd) it would still be below national trend .[/p][/quote]Yes, you did manage to make it suit your argument after all. So the reduction is purely down to national trends but the increase is all the fault of the local Police and Councils. Brilliant ![/p][/quote]I did not say the increase was due to Dorset Police. I said "In any case, 18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset."[/p][/quote]Yes but the overall total casualties have reduced from 3051 to 2415 over 5 years according to these published tables. Hardly the catastrophic increase you keep claiming. Or do people who only get slightly injured not matter in your estimation. In any case if you read what I said I reckoned you would blame the Police and Councils, not just Police. Wriggle out of that one. tbpoole

7:47am Mon 13 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Good grief tbpoole all you want to do is argue. The greatest "contribution" to road safety in recent years in Dorset is "no excuse". Over this period, as I have said, we have had many speed limit reductions of the type Jades family seem to want, plenty of speed limit enforcement, huge numbers of local drivers going on courses, traffic "calming" and other engineering "improvements", and ksis which were in sharp decline have levelled off http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/media.jsp?me
diaid=172589&filetyp
e=pdf and road deaths have steadily increased. I have not "kept claiming catastrophic increase". I said "18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset" Of course the council have a responsibility as well as the police, the fact that I didn't mention them in one message is hardly a big deal.
Good grief tbpoole all you want to do is argue. The greatest "contribution" to road safety in recent years in Dorset is "no excuse". Over this period, as I have said, we have had many speed limit reductions of the type Jades family seem to want, plenty of speed limit enforcement, huge numbers of local drivers going on courses, traffic "calming" and other engineering "improvements", and ksis which were in sharp decline have levelled off http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=172589&filetyp e=pdf and road deaths have steadily increased. I have not "kept claiming catastrophic increase". I said "18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset" Of course the council have a responsibility as well as the police, the fact that I didn't mention them in one message is hardly a big deal. dorsetspeed

12:41pm Mon 13 Jan 14

davecook says...

The tragic death of Jade was nothing to do with the speed limit there. She was killed by someone who was driving way outside of what a reasonable person would be expected to drive, and as such, I do not see that a reduction in the speed limit would have saved her life had a lower speed limit already been in force, such is the negligent attitude of her killer. Having said that, there is a problem with the westbound junction where the Ringwood road joins the main A31. Visibility is not very good, and it is all very well people on here saying that joining traffic should speed up to the main road speed, but there are numerous instances where there is no way of reasonably joining the main road at any speed due to the volume of westbound traffic. The junction was poorly designed as the whole road should have been 3 lane either direction rather than 2 lane westbound and 4 lanes eastbound. Extending the slip road westbound to the point where the outside lane starts would alleviate many of the problems. The whole A31 needs a speed rethink, not just the junction where Jade was killed. Possibly a 60mph limit right through from the bottom of Poulner Hill to the Ferndown Bypass might be more consistent and appropriate.
The tragic death of Jade was nothing to do with the speed limit there. She was killed by someone who was driving way outside of what a reasonable person would be expected to drive, and as such, I do not see that a reduction in the speed limit would have saved her life had a lower speed limit already been in force, such is the negligent attitude of her killer. Having said that, there is a problem with the westbound junction where the Ringwood road joins the main A31. Visibility is not very good, and it is all very well people on here saying that joining traffic should speed up to the main road speed, but there are numerous instances where there is no way of reasonably joining the main road at any speed due to the volume of westbound traffic. The junction was poorly designed as the whole road should have been 3 lane either direction rather than 2 lane westbound and 4 lanes eastbound. Extending the slip road westbound to the point where the outside lane starts would alleviate many of the problems. The whole A31 needs a speed rethink, not just the junction where Jade was killed. Possibly a 60mph limit right through from the bottom of Poulner Hill to the Ferndown Bypass might be more consistent and appropriate. davecook

12:43pm Mon 13 Jan 14

davecook says...

SympatheticSam wrote:
As others have said, it's ridiculous to blame speed for this. If everyone drove with a sensible gap in front of them, no accidents would happen. Just use mirrors and think, whether at 20mph or 80mph.
I would hope nobody drives through this junction at 80mph.
[quote][p][bold]SympatheticSam[/bold] wrote: As others have said, it's ridiculous to blame speed for this. If everyone drove with a sensible gap in front of them, no accidents would happen. Just use mirrors and think, whether at 20mph or 80mph.[/p][/quote]I would hope nobody drives through this junction at 80mph. davecook

5:48pm Mon 13 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Good grief tbpoole all you want to do is argue. The greatest "contribution" to road safety in recent years in Dorset is "no excuse". Over this period, as I have said, we have had many speed limit reductions of the type Jades family seem to want, plenty of speed limit enforcement, huge numbers of local drivers going on courses, traffic "calming" and other engineering "improvements", and ksis which were in sharp decline have levelled off http://www.dorsetfor

you.com/media.jsp?me

diaid=172589&fil
etyp
e=pdf and road deaths have steadily increased. I have not "kept claiming catastrophic increase". I said "18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset" Of course the council have a responsibility as well as the police, the fact that I didn't mention them in one message is hardly a big deal.
You are just going round in circles and not answering my question. If the speed limit policies have been such a failure how come there has been a greater than 20% reduction in overall casualties? Surely there should have been an increase according to you? In terms of fatals I doubt few if any have occurred on the roads that have had the limit reduced.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Good grief tbpoole all you want to do is argue. The greatest "contribution" to road safety in recent years in Dorset is "no excuse". Over this period, as I have said, we have had many speed limit reductions of the type Jades family seem to want, plenty of speed limit enforcement, huge numbers of local drivers going on courses, traffic "calming" and other engineering "improvements", and ksis which were in sharp decline have levelled off http://www.dorsetfor you.com/media.jsp?me diaid=172589&fil etyp e=pdf and road deaths have steadily increased. I have not "kept claiming catastrophic increase". I said "18 to 29 doesn't shout success at all the speed limit reductions, enforcements, education, engineering improvements etc. that we've had to put up with in Dorset" Of course the council have a responsibility as well as the police, the fact that I didn't mention them in one message is hardly a big deal.[/p][/quote]You are just going round in circles and not answering my question. If the speed limit policies have been such a failure how come there has been a greater than 20% reduction in overall casualties? Surely there should have been an increase according to you? In terms of fatals I doubt few if any have occurred on the roads that have had the limit reduced. tbpoole

6:35pm Mon 13 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, ok a question, I can work with that. If you look at any long term casualty charts you will see that a reduction of 20% of 5 years is typical. This even goes back to 1970, way before speed cameras were even dreamed of. There are many obvious reasons for this, such as safer cars, safer roads, higher proportion of safer roads (i.e fast roads, motorways), better communications, better hospital and medical procedures, airbags, seatbelts, abs, increasing costs for younger drivers, etc . So if you did something that had absolutely no benefit whatsoever, you might expect to see a 20% reduction over 5 years.

The most active part of Dorset Road Unsafe has certainly been in the last 4 years, during "no excuse". This has coincided with some of the worst years for reduction, with ksi reduction stopping and perhaps starting to reverse, and deaths increasing from 18(?) to 29. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be proud of those results if they had happened while I was responsible for road safety in Dorset.

I agree, probably none of the deaths occurred on roads with reduced limits and this does help to illustrate the futility of trying to idiot proof small sections of road instead of properly dealing with the idiots with proper policing.
tbpoole, ok a question, I can work with that. If you look at any long term casualty charts you will see that a reduction of 20% of 5 years is typical. This even goes back to 1970, way before speed cameras were even dreamed of. There are many obvious reasons for this, such as safer cars, safer roads, higher proportion of safer roads (i.e fast roads, motorways), better communications, better hospital and medical procedures, airbags, seatbelts, abs, increasing costs for younger drivers, etc . So if you did something that had absolutely no benefit whatsoever, you might expect to see a 20% reduction over 5 years. The most active part of Dorset Road Unsafe has certainly been in the last 4 years, during "no excuse". This has coincided with some of the worst years for reduction, with ksi reduction stopping and perhaps starting to reverse, and deaths increasing from 18(?) to 29. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be proud of those results if they had happened while I was responsible for road safety in Dorset. I agree, probably none of the deaths occurred on roads with reduced limits and this does help to illustrate the futility of trying to idiot proof small sections of road instead of properly dealing with the idiots with proper policing. dorsetspeed

10:42pm Mon 13 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, ok a question, I can work with that. If you look at any long term casualty charts you will see that a reduction of 20% of 5 years is typical. This even goes back to 1970, way before speed cameras were even dreamed of. There are many obvious reasons for this, such as safer cars, safer roads, higher proportion of safer roads (i.e fast roads, motorways), better communications, better hospital and medical procedures, airbags, seatbelts, abs, increasing costs for younger drivers, etc . So if you did something that had absolutely no benefit whatsoever, you might expect to see a 20% reduction over 5 years.

The most active part of Dorset Road Unsafe has certainly been in the last 4 years, during "no excuse". This has coincided with some of the worst years for reduction, with ksi reduction stopping and perhaps starting to reverse, and deaths increasing from 18(?) to 29. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be proud of those results if they had happened while I was responsible for road safety in Dorset.

I agree, probably none of the deaths occurred on roads with reduced limits and this does help to illustrate the futility of trying to idiot proof small sections of road instead of properly dealing with the idiots with proper policing.
There you go again, only looking at figures that might vaguely support yor useless arguments. You keep concentrating on fatals. The total number of casualties is the lowest it has ever been probably, so it can't be in any way shape or form the worst years for reduction as you try and make out. At last you agree - none of these fatals happened on roads with a lower limit so that means they have worked -QED.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, ok a question, I can work with that. If you look at any long term casualty charts you will see that a reduction of 20% of 5 years is typical. This even goes back to 1970, way before speed cameras were even dreamed of. There are many obvious reasons for this, such as safer cars, safer roads, higher proportion of safer roads (i.e fast roads, motorways), better communications, better hospital and medical procedures, airbags, seatbelts, abs, increasing costs for younger drivers, etc . So if you did something that had absolutely no benefit whatsoever, you might expect to see a 20% reduction over 5 years. The most active part of Dorset Road Unsafe has certainly been in the last 4 years, during "no excuse". This has coincided with some of the worst years for reduction, with ksi reduction stopping and perhaps starting to reverse, and deaths increasing from 18(?) to 29. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be proud of those results if they had happened while I was responsible for road safety in Dorset. I agree, probably none of the deaths occurred on roads with reduced limits and this does help to illustrate the futility of trying to idiot proof small sections of road instead of properly dealing with the idiots with proper policing.[/p][/quote]There you go again, only looking at figures that might vaguely support yor useless arguments. You keep concentrating on fatals. The total number of casualties is the lowest it has ever been probably, so it can't be in any way shape or form the worst years for reduction as you try and make out. At last you agree - none of these fatals happened on roads with a lower limit so that means they have worked -QED. tbpoole

7:43am Tue 14 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, your capacity to argue incorrectly is starting to amaze even me. My previous statement was mostly about ksi, There is a difference between absolute value and reduction. Effectiveness can only be measured by which way the value is going and by how much compared to before. In the last 3 years we've had no ksi reduction at all, that is indeed the worst reduction we've had as far as I am aware, and deaths have increased, while "no excuse" has been in place, with course income increasing from £1.5m to £2.5M. Road deaths are extremely random and infrequent events, if you put a garden gnome at death locations you would most likely find no deaths there if you looked at a subsequent year, it does not mean the gnome prevented deaths! And even if it did, moving deaths from one place to another (and increasing the total) is not something that I would be happy with as a result.
tbpoole, your capacity to argue incorrectly is starting to amaze even me. My previous statement was mostly about ksi, There is a difference between absolute value and reduction. Effectiveness can only be measured by which way the value is going and by how much compared to before. In the last 3 years we've had no ksi reduction at all, that is indeed the worst reduction we've had as far as I am aware, and deaths have increased, while "no excuse" has been in place, with course income increasing from £1.5m to £2.5M. Road deaths are extremely random and infrequent events, if you put a garden gnome at death locations you would most likely find no deaths there if you looked at a subsequent year, it does not mean the gnome prevented deaths! And even if it did, moving deaths from one place to another (and increasing the total) is not something that I would be happy with as a result. dorsetspeed

12:50pm Tue 14 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, your capacity to argue incorrectly is starting to amaze even me. My previous statement was mostly about ksi, There is a difference between absolute value and reduction. Effectiveness can only be measured by which way the value is going and by how much compared to before. In the last 3 years we've had no ksi reduction at all, that is indeed the worst reduction we've had as far as I am aware, and deaths have increased, while "no excuse" has been in place, with course income increasing from £1.5m to £2.5M. Road deaths are extremely random and infrequent events, if you put a garden gnome at death locations you would most likely find no deaths there if you looked at a subsequent year, it does not mean the gnome prevented deaths! And even if it did, moving deaths from one place to another (and increasing the total) is not something that I would be happy with as a result.
It's just not sinking in yet, is it? You are picking and choosing stats in a way that suits your argument. If you knew ANYTHING about statistics you would know that for numbers subject to random annual variations the smaller the dataset the more pronounced the effects will be from year to year. For any measured change to be statistically significant you have to look at much longer periods than three years- that is the absoulute minimum - and a larger data pool . As I said previously the (larger) total number of casualties has reduced significantly. Fact. You just cannot draw similar conclusions about the much smaller number of fatals. If you do then you show your ignorance of statistics. You yourself admit that fatals are random and rare events, so following that logic whatever measures are put in place by Police etc it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to affect these small numbers. I know you are never happy but come on, wake up and smell the coffee - you are concentrating on such a small sample it is impossible to draw any conclusions one way or the other about external interventions. You claim that speed limit reductions will have no reduction effect yet in the next breath blame the Police outright for any increase. That is totally illogical and you know it.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, your capacity to argue incorrectly is starting to amaze even me. My previous statement was mostly about ksi, There is a difference between absolute value and reduction. Effectiveness can only be measured by which way the value is going and by how much compared to before. In the last 3 years we've had no ksi reduction at all, that is indeed the worst reduction we've had as far as I am aware, and deaths have increased, while "no excuse" has been in place, with course income increasing from £1.5m to £2.5M. Road deaths are extremely random and infrequent events, if you put a garden gnome at death locations you would most likely find no deaths there if you looked at a subsequent year, it does not mean the gnome prevented deaths! And even if it did, moving deaths from one place to another (and increasing the total) is not something that I would be happy with as a result.[/p][/quote]It's just not sinking in yet, is it? You are picking and choosing stats in a way that suits your argument. If you knew ANYTHING about statistics you would know that for numbers subject to random annual variations the smaller the dataset the more pronounced the effects will be from year to year. For any measured change to be statistically significant you have to look at much longer periods than three years- that is the absoulute minimum - and a larger data pool . As I said previously the (larger) total number of casualties has reduced significantly. Fact. You just cannot draw similar conclusions about the much smaller number of fatals. If you do then you show your ignorance of statistics. You yourself admit that fatals are random and rare events, so following that logic whatever measures are put in place by Police etc it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to affect these small numbers. I know you are never happy but come on, wake up and smell the coffee - you are concentrating on such a small sample it is impossible to draw any conclusions one way or the other about external interventions. You claim that speed limit reductions will have no reduction effect yet in the next breath blame the Police outright for any increase. That is totally illogical and you know it. tbpoole

1:05pm Tue 14 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, if I had said that because deaths in Dorset were 18 in 2010 and 29 in 2013, THEREFORE Dorset police were responsible for an increase of 60% in road deaths, I would indeed be misusing statisitcs.

But I repeat yet again, as Dorset police have entered into their more active campaign, combined with many speed limit reductions etc., over a 3 year period, the long term KSI (larger numbers) reduction that we were seeing has completely halted and deaths have increased. I am simply saying that this does not shout success, that's it, it's an understatement really.
tbpoole, if I had said that because deaths in Dorset were 18 in 2010 and 29 in 2013, THEREFORE Dorset police were responsible for an increase of 60% in road deaths, I would indeed be misusing statisitcs. But I repeat yet again, as Dorset police have entered into their more active campaign, combined with many speed limit reductions etc., over a 3 year period, the long term KSI (larger numbers) reduction that we were seeing has completely halted and deaths have increased. I am simply saying that this does not shout success, that's it, it's an understatement really. dorsetspeed

1:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, if I had said that because deaths in Dorset were 18 in 2010 and 29 in 2013, THEREFORE Dorset police were responsible for an increase of 60% in road deaths, I would indeed be misusing statisitcs. But I repeat yet again, as Dorset police have entered into their more active campaign, combined with many speed limit reductions etc., over a 3 year period, the long term KSI (larger numbers) reduction that we were seeing has completely halted and deaths have increased. I am simply saying that this does not shout success, that's it, it's an understatement really.
Have the good grace to admit you are simply WRONG and move on. By responding in any other way you are admitting that you are way off the mark on this one.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, if I had said that because deaths in Dorset were 18 in 2010 and 29 in 2013, THEREFORE Dorset police were responsible for an increase of 60% in road deaths, I would indeed be misusing statisitcs. But I repeat yet again, as Dorset police have entered into their more active campaign, combined with many speed limit reductions etc., over a 3 year period, the long term KSI (larger numbers) reduction that we were seeing has completely halted and deaths have increased. I am simply saying that this does not shout success, that's it, it's an understatement really.[/p][/quote]Have the good grace to admit you are simply WRONG and move on. By responding in any other way you are admitting that you are way off the mark on this one. tbpoole

2:28pm Tue 14 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Could you point out exactly what is wrong and why?
Could you point out exactly what is wrong and why? dorsetspeed

5:17pm Tue 14 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Could you point out exactly what is wrong and why?
Ok. How's this!

You were wrong in your original assertion that fatals had tripled but when I pointed out this error you either ignored it or blamed it on an old Echo article, rather than apologising and retracting it because it didn't help with your sensationalist approach.

You claim to have any number of perfect alternative solutions but have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to back these up.

You claim that a reduction in speed limit would have no impact on casualties when all the official evidence points to the opposite.

You further claim that ksi reduction has levelled off and this is down to no excuse being rubbish. Can you prove that this has not happened elsewhere, either in the south west region or nationally, because otherwise there is no evidence to make that link?

You have not answered or countered any of my points about statistical integrity, because your argument is based on your independent naive interpretation alone and not any sensible analysis.

Finally you have shown insensitivity and disrespect to the parents and petitioners by twisting the campaign and original article to support your usual hackneyed attacks on everyone who opposes your viewpoint.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Could you point out exactly what is wrong and why?[/p][/quote]Ok. How's this! You were wrong in your original assertion that fatals had tripled but when I pointed out this error you either ignored it or blamed it on an old Echo article, rather than apologising and retracting it because it didn't help with your sensationalist approach. You claim to have any number of perfect alternative solutions but have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to back these up. You claim that a reduction in speed limit would have no impact on casualties when all the official evidence points to the opposite. You further claim that ksi reduction has levelled off and this is down to no excuse being rubbish. Can you prove that this has not happened elsewhere, either in the south west region or nationally, because otherwise there is no evidence to make that link? You have not answered or countered any of my points about statistical integrity, because your argument is based on your independent naive interpretation alone and not any sensible analysis. Finally you have shown insensitivity and disrespect to the parents and petitioners by twisting the campaign and original article to support your usual hackneyed attacks on everyone who opposes your viewpoint. tbpoole

6:08pm Tue 14 Jan 14

dorsetspeed says...

Actually, I thanked you for correcting me and said I would check it (not done yet)

I claim only 1 solution, proper policing and I have not said even that is perfect. I think you are the only person I know who thinks that proper traffic cops do not contribute to road safety - I presume this is what you think as you seem to need evidence that they do.

I do not claim that a reduction in speed limit would have no impact on casualties.

ksi reduction in Dorset has indeed levelled off. I have not said that this is a because of no excuse being rubbish (however it is probably a factor, but no one will ever be able to determine or prove this one way or the other).

I have concluded only that what we have seen does not shout success, and I am quite correct, it does not. I have drawn no conclusions that come anywhere near to being any kind of statistical analysis.

I'm sorry if I have offended parents and petitioners but I am afraid that I would still prefer road safety decisions to be made by experts in control of all the facts and proper methods with a more global understanding of road safety, not those wanting to "do something" in response to an emotional disaster at the location it happened, when it is obvious that the location and the limit was not the issue, it was a totally rogue driver who might not have been on the road if such parents and petitioners, like myself, were asking for proper roads policing.
Actually, I thanked you for correcting me and said I would check it (not done yet) I claim only 1 solution, proper policing and I have not said even that is perfect. I think you are the only person I know who thinks that proper traffic cops do not contribute to road safety - I presume this is what you think as you seem to need evidence that they do. I do not claim that a reduction in speed limit would have no impact on casualties. ksi reduction in Dorset has indeed levelled off. I have not said that this is a because of no excuse being rubbish (however it is probably a factor, but no one will ever be able to determine or prove this one way or the other). I have concluded only that what we have seen does not shout success, and I am quite correct, it does not. I have drawn no conclusions that come anywhere near to being any kind of statistical analysis. I'm sorry if I have offended parents and petitioners but I am afraid that I would still prefer road safety decisions to be made by experts in control of all the facts and proper methods with a more global understanding of road safety, not those wanting to "do something" in response to an emotional disaster at the location it happened, when it is obvious that the location and the limit was not the issue, it was a totally rogue driver who might not have been on the road if such parents and petitioners, like myself, were asking for proper roads policing. dorsetspeed

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree