Police to crackdown on speeding drivers as part of Europe-wide scheme

Police to crackdown on speeding drivers as part of Europe-wide scheme

Police to crackdown on speeding drivers as part of Europe-wide scheme

First published in News

POLICE officers from Hampshire’s roads unit will join in a Europe-wide crackdown on speeding this week.

Forces across the continent will be participating in the campaign to highlight the devastating effect excessive or inappropriate speed can have on the safety of road users.

Europe-wide it is estimated that speeding contributes to as many as one third of all fatal crashes.

During 2013 in Hampshire 27 per cent of people killed in road crashes died in accidents where exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions were recorded as contributory factors.

Sergeant Rob Heard said it is a ‘good reminder’ to people to keep to the speed limits.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

BIGTONE says...

Sergeant Rob Heard said it is a ‘good reminder’ to people to keep to the speed limits..........espe
cially if you are on the autobahn.
Sergeant Rob Heard said it is a ‘good reminder’ to people to keep to the speed limits..........espe cially if you are on the autobahn. BIGTONE
  • Score: -1

12:37pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Townee says...

So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them.
We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes.
So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them. We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes. Townee
  • Score: 5

12:55pm Mon 14 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

The figures are typical of national figures, and include exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions (i.e. within the speed limit). The figures for each are about the same, which tells us that if someone dies as the result of a road traffic accident involving speed, the speed is just as likely to be below as above the limit!

So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". The obsession with a number, which has come about not for any safety reason but because of the financial motivations, is distracting us from the judgement of determining what the safe speed is according to the road type and conditions - something that the majority of drivers are able to do very well, and those that can't are very good at avoiding being detected for speeding.

The answer as always is that we need more proper traffic cops targeting all kinds of problems, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions.
The figures are typical of national figures, and include exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions (i.e. within the speed limit). The figures for each are about the same, which tells us that if someone dies as the result of a road traffic accident involving speed, the speed is just as likely to be below as above the limit! So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". The obsession with a number, which has come about not for any safety reason but because of the financial motivations, is distracting us from the judgement of determining what the safe speed is according to the road type and conditions - something that the majority of drivers are able to do very well, and those that can't are very good at avoiding being detected for speeding. The answer as always is that we need more proper traffic cops targeting all kinds of problems, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

12:57pm Mon 14 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Sounds like a good week to go thieving, burgling and drug dealing in Hampshire then........providin
g you don't speed whilst doing it.
Sounds like a good week to go thieving, burgling and drug dealing in Hampshire then........providin g you don't speed whilst doing it. muscliffman
  • Score: 6

1:31pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Poole Pirate says...

Excellent scheme - long may it continue and hopefully spread throughout Dorset.
Excellent scheme - long may it continue and hopefully spread throughout Dorset. Poole Pirate
  • Score: -9

2:26pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Rally says...

Dorsetspeed wrote, 'So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions".
I cannot agree with 'the limit is irrelevant' because it soon gets into statistics, exercises in logic, semantics, etc. and the whole issue gets clouded by pointless arguments.
However, I whole-heartedly agree with 'What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions".'
This is something that can be dealt with to some extent by the standard driving test being made more of the calibre of the Institute of Advanced Motorists test.
Instead of fines (which are unfair) we should be looking at more points on a licence for all motoring offences, and more in the way of driving bans.
This would soon separate the chaff from the wheat - in most cases.
Sadly, there will always be the dangerous simpleton who thinks the Highway Code is for wimps, and knows better than anybody else what is an appropriate speed in any given driving condition - which for them is almost invariably greater than the posted speed limit.
Dorsetspeed wrote, 'So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". I cannot agree with 'the limit is irrelevant' because it soon gets into statistics, exercises in logic, semantics, etc. and the whole issue gets clouded by pointless arguments. However, I whole-heartedly agree with 'What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions".' This is something that can be dealt with to some extent by the standard driving test being made more of the calibre of the Institute of Advanced Motorists test. Instead of fines (which are unfair) we should be looking at more points on a licence for all motoring offences, and more in the way of driving bans. This would soon separate the chaff from the wheat - in most cases. Sadly, there will always be the dangerous simpleton who thinks the Highway Code is for wimps, and knows better than anybody else what is an appropriate speed in any given driving condition - which for them is almost invariably greater than the posted speed limit. Rally
  • Score: -5

4:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

60plus says...

What a waist of money there are certain times of day you are lucky to do 20miles ph on the M27 & A31, they want to fill in all the holes on these roads.
What a waist of money there are certain times of day you are lucky to do 20miles ph on the M27 & A31, they want to fill in all the holes on these roads. 60plus
  • Score: 3

5:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Diesel Dog says...

Can Camera Vans use video evidence to fine the morons driving on side lights, faulty lights or no lights in fog or heavy rain?.
Thats dangerous too.
Can Camera Vans use video evidence to fine the morons driving on side lights, faulty lights or no lights in fog or heavy rain?. Thats dangerous too. Diesel Dog
  • Score: -1

7:58pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Ophilum says...

Hey people this is why we should all be voting UKIP at the EUSSR elections this month to stop this Communist conspiracy from taking us over lock stock and Barrel. VOTE UKIP to call a halt and get the roads resurfaced instead of sending millions to our Masters in Brussels we do not need a eu wide speed enforcement get real .
Hey people this is why we should all be voting UKIP at the EUSSR elections this month to stop this Communist conspiracy from taking us over lock stock and Barrel. VOTE UKIP to call a halt and get the roads resurfaced instead of sending millions to our Masters in Brussels we do not need a eu wide speed enforcement get real . Ophilum
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Turtlebay says...

Diesel Dog wrote:
Can Camera Vans use video evidence to fine the morons driving on side lights, faulty lights or no lights in fog or heavy rain?.
Thats dangerous too.
No, because nine times out of ten they are parked illegally on a clearway themselves.
[quote][p][bold]Diesel Dog[/bold] wrote: Can Camera Vans use video evidence to fine the morons driving on side lights, faulty lights or no lights in fog or heavy rain?. Thats dangerous too.[/p][/quote]No, because nine times out of ten they are parked illegally on a clearway themselves. Turtlebay
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Mon 14 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The figures are typical of national figures, and include exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions (i.e. within the speed limit). The figures for each are about the same, which tells us that if someone dies as the result of a road traffic accident involving speed, the speed is just as likely to be below as above the limit!

So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". The obsession with a number, which has come about not for any safety reason but because of the financial motivations, is distracting us from the judgement of determining what the safe speed is according to the road type and conditions - something that the majority of drivers are able to do very well, and those that can't are very good at avoiding being detected for speeding.

The answer as always is that we need more proper traffic cops targeting all kinds of problems, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions.
I think you are only entitled to comment on this if you rename yourself Hampshirespeed. I thought it was only Dorset police who were inept according to you?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: The figures are typical of national figures, and include exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions (i.e. within the speed limit). The figures for each are about the same, which tells us that if someone dies as the result of a road traffic accident involving speed, the speed is just as likely to be below as above the limit! So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". The obsession with a number, which has come about not for any safety reason but because of the financial motivations, is distracting us from the judgement of determining what the safe speed is according to the road type and conditions - something that the majority of drivers are able to do very well, and those that can't are very good at avoiding being detected for speeding. The answer as always is that we need more proper traffic cops targeting all kinds of problems, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions.[/p][/quote]I think you are only entitled to comment on this if you rename yourself Hampshirespeed. I thought it was only Dorset police who were inept according to you? tbpoole
  • Score: 1

9:52pm Mon 14 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

Townee wrote:
So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them.
We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes.
And since when have Hampshire police been responsible for filling in potholes?
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them. We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes.[/p][/quote]And since when have Hampshire police been responsible for filling in potholes? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Mon 14 Apr 14

master plan says...

Who on here has had a crash?
At what speed was you going?
In seventeen years of driving I crashed once
I was only doing ! 20 MPH !
Who on here has had a crash? At what speed was you going? In seventeen years of driving I crashed once I was only doing ! 20 MPH ! master plan
  • Score: 1

12:41am Tue 15 Apr 14

Rally says...

Rally wrote:
Dorsetspeed wrote, 'So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions".
I cannot agree with 'the limit is irrelevant' because it soon gets into statistics, exercises in logic, semantics, etc. and the whole issue gets clouded by pointless arguments.
However, I whole-heartedly agree with 'What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions".'
This is something that can be dealt with to some extent by the standard driving test being made more of the calibre of the Institute of Advanced Motorists test.
Instead of fines (which are unfair) we should be looking at more points on a licence for all motoring offences, and more in the way of driving bans.
This would soon separate the chaff from the wheat - in most cases.
Sadly, there will always be the dangerous simpleton who thinks the Highway Code is for wimps, and knows better than anybody else what is an appropriate speed in any given driving condition - which for them is almost invariably greater than the posted speed limit.
I see that at least 4 people here disagree with my viewpoints.
Would any one of them care to post here what it is in particular they disagree with and why?
Thanks in advance to those concerned.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed wrote, 'So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". I cannot agree with 'the limit is irrelevant' because it soon gets into statistics, exercises in logic, semantics, etc. and the whole issue gets clouded by pointless arguments. However, I whole-heartedly agree with 'What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions".' This is something that can be dealt with to some extent by the standard driving test being made more of the calibre of the Institute of Advanced Motorists test. Instead of fines (which are unfair) we should be looking at more points on a licence for all motoring offences, and more in the way of driving bans. This would soon separate the chaff from the wheat - in most cases. Sadly, there will always be the dangerous simpleton who thinks the Highway Code is for wimps, and knows better than anybody else what is an appropriate speed in any given driving condition - which for them is almost invariably greater than the posted speed limit.[/p][/quote]I see that at least 4 people here disagree with my viewpoints. Would any one of them care to post here what it is in particular they disagree with and why? Thanks in advance to those concerned. Rally
  • Score: -1

9:30am Tue 15 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The figures are typical of national figures, and include exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions (i.e. within the speed limit). The figures for each are about the same, which tells us that if someone dies as the result of a road traffic accident involving speed, the speed is just as likely to be below as above the limit!

So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". The obsession with a number, which has come about not for any safety reason but because of the financial motivations, is distracting us from the judgement of determining what the safe speed is according to the road type and conditions - something that the majority of drivers are able to do very well, and those that can't are very good at avoiding being detected for speeding.

The answer as always is that we need more proper traffic cops targeting all kinds of problems, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions.
I think you are only entitled to comment on this if you rename yourself Hampshirespeed. I thought it was only Dorset police who were inept according to you?
Absolutely not, this is a national, even a global problem, although Dorset are among the worst, the worst few including Scotland

http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/134.a
spx

and Kent

http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/127.a
spx

and Humberside

http://www.fightback
withfacts.com/humber
side-safer-roads-fal
se-claims/
(someone else's website)
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: The figures are typical of national figures, and include exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for the conditions (i.e. within the speed limit). The figures for each are about the same, which tells us that if someone dies as the result of a road traffic accident involving speed, the speed is just as likely to be below as above the limit! So the limit is irrelevant. What matters is "driving too fast for the conditions". The obsession with a number, which has come about not for any safety reason but because of the financial motivations, is distracting us from the judgement of determining what the safe speed is according to the road type and conditions - something that the majority of drivers are able to do very well, and those that can't are very good at avoiding being detected for speeding. The answer as always is that we need more proper traffic cops targeting all kinds of problems, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions.[/p][/quote]I think you are only entitled to comment on this if you rename yourself Hampshirespeed. I thought it was only Dorset police who were inept according to you?[/p][/quote]Absolutely not, this is a national, even a global problem, although Dorset are among the worst, the worst few including Scotland http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/134.a spx and Kent http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/127.a spx and Humberside http://www.fightback withfacts.com/humber side-safer-roads-fal se-claims/ (someone else's website) dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

9:35am Tue 15 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
Townee wrote:
So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them.
We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes.
And since when have Hampshire police been responsible for filling in potholes?
It would be a concern to them if they had a genuine interest in road safety, and they should be asking themselves "how many potholes could be repaired with the cost of a speed camera and what are the expected reductions in accidents for each" and if they found that the pothole repair was more cost effective they should do everything they can to ensure the limited funds are spent in the most effective way. They won't do this though because although it may save lives it wouldn't MAKE MONEY.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them. We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes.[/p][/quote]And since when have Hampshire police been responsible for filling in potholes?[/p][/quote]It would be a concern to them if they had a genuine interest in road safety, and they should be asking themselves "how many potholes could be repaired with the cost of a speed camera and what are the expected reductions in accidents for each" and if they found that the pothole repair was more cost effective they should do everything they can to ensure the limited funds are spent in the most effective way. They won't do this though because although it may save lives it wouldn't MAKE MONEY. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

7:46am Fri 18 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Townee wrote:
So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them.
We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes.
And since when have Hampshire police been responsible for filling in potholes?
It would be a concern to them if they had a genuine interest in road safety, and they should be asking themselves "how many potholes could be repaired with the cost of a speed camera and what are the expected reductions in accidents for each" and if they found that the pothole repair was more cost effective they should do everything they can to ensure the limited funds are spent in the most effective way. They won't do this though because although it may save lives it wouldn't MAKE MONEY.
How many potholes would it pay for? About ten - ten down, one hundred thousand to go!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: So 73% of accidents were accidents and no caused by speed. So we spend lots of money trying to catch a few speeding motorists and fine them. We need to find ways to make our roads safer, like FILLING IN HOLE and using more money that we pay to use road put to a better use instead of wasting it on crack pot schemes.[/p][/quote]And since when have Hampshire police been responsible for filling in potholes?[/p][/quote]It would be a concern to them if they had a genuine interest in road safety, and they should be asking themselves "how many potholes could be repaired with the cost of a speed camera and what are the expected reductions in accidents for each" and if they found that the pothole repair was more cost effective they should do everything they can to ensure the limited funds are spent in the most effective way. They won't do this though because although it may save lives it wouldn't MAKE MONEY.[/p][/quote]How many potholes would it pay for? About ten - ten down, one hundred thousand to go! tbpoole
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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