Poole's camera car spotted 'running red light'

RED LIGHT STORM: The Poole Camera Car

AWARE OF ALLEGATION: Jason Benjamin

CAPTURED: The van is pictured stopping at the end of a slipway onto a dual carriageway

First published in News by

HOT on the heels of a Poole camera car driver being nabbed for speeding, the vehicle has been seen jumping a red light.

Poole resident Deb Simpson, who was driving behind the distinctive ‘spy car’, said: “They think they are above the law.”

She reported the matter to Borough of Poole and was less than thrilled with the response. “They are not going to do anything,” she said.

The car she was in was behind the white Borough of Poole Citroen with a video camera on the roof, which was on the lookout for parking infringements, when they came to temporary traffic lights at Sea View, Parkstone.

“The two cars in front jumped the red light and he was the third to go through,” she said. “There is no excuse.”

She added: “There is one rule for the council workers and one for the rest of us. Ed Balls (shadow chancellor) went through lights and he got a fine and three points on his licence. Why don’t they get the same?”

If the video camera was operating it would have clearly captured the law being broken, she said.

However, the reply she received from Borough of Poole said the driver had been ‘spoken to’.

Earlier this month the Daily Echo reported how a driver of the same car had been caught speeding in Banks Road, Sandbanks by the Dorset Road Safety camera car, exceeding the 30mph limit by 6mph – only six days earlier.

In relation to the latest infringement Jason Benjamin, parking services manager said: “We can confirm that the council is aware of an alleged traffic offence which occurred on January 24.

“While it is not council policy to comment on individual matters such as this, we would expect all staff to drive safely and responsibly while on council business. We have spoken to the individual concerned about this matter.”

Dorset Road Safe, which operates 15 red light camera sites across the county said: “You are breaking the law if you cross the stop line when the traffic signals are showing a red light.”

‘Dangerous’ parking places

A DORSET Road Safe camera van parked at the end of a Poole slip road was not considered to be in a safe place by a driver.

Seeing a photo posted on Facebook of the van stopped on a slip road to a busy dual-carriageway leading from Tower Park onto Dorset Way, he thought it a ‘dangerous place’.

However the safety partnership, via Dorset Police, declined to answer any questions from the Daily Echo on why it was parked there, the dangers to drivers joining the dual-carriageway and what the penalty would be if any other motorist parked at the end of a slip road.

The response from Dorset Road Safety Partnership was: “The safety camera van was on duty at an authorised location. Please submit an FIO (sic) request if you wish further detail.”

  • Residents have also complained that the van was parked in a ‘dangerous’ place on the Fleetsbridge flyover section of Dorset Way, on the asphalt at the side of the 50mph dual-carriageway.

“They seem to be parking in places that are incredibly dangerous,” said one driver who saw the van.

Comments (71)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:36am Mon 10 Feb 14

EGHH says...

it used to be an offence for police vehicles e.g the speed camera van to break the law whilst on duty unless it was an emergency, has this changed?
it used to be an offence for police vehicles e.g the speed camera van to break the law whilst on duty unless it was an emergency, has this changed? EGHH
  • Score: 44

6:37am Mon 10 Feb 14

Phixer says...

EGHH wrote:
it used to be an offence for police vehicles e.g the speed camera van to break the law whilst on duty unless it was an emergency, has this changed?
Where is the evidence? Would you like to be prosecuted on the evidence of one witness without corroboration? Thought not.

PBC cannot do anything - no evidence.

And did Simpson report this and the other two drivers alleged to have jumped the same red light to the police? Thought not.

The police cannot do anything - no evidence.
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] wrote: it used to be an offence for police vehicles e.g the speed camera van to break the law whilst on duty unless it was an emergency, has this changed?[/p][/quote]Where is the evidence? Would you like to be prosecuted on the evidence of one witness without corroboration? Thought not. PBC cannot do anything - no evidence. And did Simpson report this and the other two drivers alleged to have jumped the same red light to the police? Thought not. The police cannot do anything - no evidence. Phixer
  • Score: 25

6:45am Mon 10 Feb 14

Peroni says...

Double standards......like the police..
Double standards......like the police.. Peroni
  • Score: 15

6:57am Mon 10 Feb 14

WTFRUON says...

I emailed a letter to Dorset Road Safety Partnership about where one of their camera vans had been parked l didn't receive a reply or an acknowledgement that they had received my email. The reason I was concerned is I broke down at the the same place I saw the camera van parked. A police patrol car stopped behind us on the verge and checked we were ok and as it was fixable there and then by me he said he would stay parked behind us with his lights flashing until we got away because we had broken down on a dangerous stretch of the dual carriage way.
I emailed a letter to Dorset Road Safety Partnership about where one of their camera vans had been parked l didn't receive a reply or an acknowledgement that they had received my email. The reason I was concerned is I broke down at the the same place I saw the camera van parked. A police patrol car stopped behind us on the verge and checked we were ok and as it was fixable there and then by me he said he would stay parked behind us with his lights flashing until we got away because we had broken down on a dangerous stretch of the dual carriage way. WTFRUON
  • Score: 24

7:57am Mon 10 Feb 14

jg1972 says...

Has nobody noticed that the person who took the photo above of the van stopping on the slip road at the end of the dual carriageway must also have broken the law as they were obviously driving at the time!
Has nobody noticed that the person who took the photo above of the van stopping on the slip road at the end of the dual carriageway must also have broken the law as they were obviously driving at the time! jg1972
  • Score: -20

8:08am Mon 10 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

simpson the stalker.
simpson the stalker. pete woodley
  • Score: -12

8:26am Mon 10 Feb 14

retry69 says...

As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual some people got too much time on their hands retry69
  • Score: -14

8:26am Mon 10 Feb 14

retry69 says...

As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual some people got too much time on their hands retry69
  • Score: -26

8:28am Mon 10 Feb 14

Staynor66 says...

jg1972 wrote:
Has nobody noticed that the person who took the photo above of the van stopping on the slip road at the end of the dual carriageway must also have broken the law as they were obviously driving at the time!
Look carefully....the passenger has taken the photo.........unless its left hand drive
[quote][p][bold]jg1972[/bold] wrote: Has nobody noticed that the person who took the photo above of the van stopping on the slip road at the end of the dual carriageway must also have broken the law as they were obviously driving at the time![/p][/quote]Look carefully....the passenger has taken the photo.........unless its left hand drive Staynor66
  • Score: 46

8:41am Mon 10 Feb 14

suzigirl says...

Makes a change from cyclists!
Makes a change from cyclists! suzigirl
  • Score: -22

9:04am Mon 10 Feb 14

sunny1966 says...

The driver had been spoken to !!! well thats OK then. Another Corrupt institution that thinks they are above everyone else. One day they will all be made to stand up and be counted. Filth
The driver had been spoken to !!! well thats OK then. Another Corrupt institution that thinks they are above everyone else. One day they will all be made to stand up and be counted. Filth sunny1966
  • Score: 17

9:05am Mon 10 Feb 14

RM says...

retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them. RM
  • Score: 20

9:06am Mon 10 Feb 14

spleen says...

Ok,

A bit of driving law for all you experts:

It is not mandatory to stop at a temporary traffic light *if you can see the exit is clear* (unless the law had been changed)

There. You can all go back to sleep now (until someone or something else forces a curtain twitch)

You're welcome.
Ok, A bit of driving law for all you experts: It is not mandatory to stop at a temporary traffic light *if you can see the exit is clear* (unless the law had been changed) There. You can all go back to sleep now (until someone or something else forces a curtain twitch) You're welcome. spleen
  • Score: 3

9:10am Mon 10 Feb 14

ranger_bob says...

suzigirl wrote:
Makes a change from cyclists!
You really are just a broken record aren't you? This is about the alledged transgression by the driver of a CAR, nothing to do with cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Makes a change from cyclists![/p][/quote]You really are just a broken record aren't you? This is about the alledged transgression by the driver of a CAR, nothing to do with cyclists! ranger_bob
  • Score: 4

9:15am Mon 10 Feb 14

rayc says...

spleen wrote:
Ok,

A bit of driving law for all you experts:

It is not mandatory to stop at a temporary traffic light *if you can see the exit is clear* (unless the law had been changed)

There. You can all go back to sleep now (until someone or something else forces a curtain twitch)

You're welcome.
I am no expert but are you sure that it is not mandatory to stop at the board that represents the line at temporary traffic lights?
Highway Code rule 88 says;
Traffic light signals and traffic signs
You MUST obey all traffic light signals and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs. Make sure you know, understand and act on all other traffic and information signs and road markings.
Laws RTA 1988 sect.36, TSRGD regs 10,15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 38 & 40
[quote][p][bold]spleen[/bold] wrote: Ok, A bit of driving law for all you experts: It is not mandatory to stop at a temporary traffic light *if you can see the exit is clear* (unless the law had been changed) There. You can all go back to sleep now (until someone or something else forces a curtain twitch) You're welcome.[/p][/quote]I am no expert but are you sure that it is not mandatory to stop at the board that represents the line at temporary traffic lights? Highway Code rule 88 says; Traffic light signals and traffic signs You MUST obey all traffic light signals and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs. Make sure you know, understand and act on all other traffic and information signs and road markings. Laws RTA 1988 sect.36, TSRGD regs 10,15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 38 & 40 rayc
  • Score: 16

9:18am Mon 10 Feb 14

retry69 says...

RM wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up
[quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.[/p][/quote]Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up retry69
  • Score: -11

9:29am Mon 10 Feb 14

politicaltrainspotter says...

I never knew Britney Spears worked for Poole Council.'Oops, i did it again.'
I never knew Britney Spears worked for Poole Council.'Oops, i did it again.' politicaltrainspotter
  • Score: 4

9:32am Mon 10 Feb 14

rayc says...

retry69 wrote:
RM wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up
I'm sure that all the motorists caught by the camera car do not think "I will do something that is an offence under the regulations cos I can" but of course that is no excuse when the PCN arrives.
It is karma, what goes around comes around. In these days of petty enforcement for monetary gain, which is justified by talk of safety of our residents etc, it is sensible to keep an eye on those who benefit.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.[/p][/quote]Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up[/p][/quote]I'm sure that all the motorists caught by the camera car do not think "I will do something that is an offence under the regulations cos I can" but of course that is no excuse when the PCN arrives. It is karma, what goes around comes around. In these days of petty enforcement for monetary gain, which is justified by talk of safety of our residents etc, it is sensible to keep an eye on those who benefit. rayc
  • Score: 11

9:37am Mon 10 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

retry69 wrote:
RM wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up
I ended up in gaol for going past a sign
and almost went bankrupt
cost me loads of money to get out .
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.[/p][/quote]Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up[/p][/quote]I ended up in gaol for going past a sign and almost went bankrupt cost me loads of money to get out . nickynoodah
  • Score: -9

10:02am Mon 10 Feb 14

BarrHumbug says...

Deb Simpson - The two cars in front jumped the red light and he was the third to go through,” she said. “There is no excuse.”
She added: “There is one rule for the council workers and one for the rest of us."

Did she report the two preceding vehicles too? Doesn't sound like it so it seems she has her own double standard rules too?
Deb Simpson - The two cars in front jumped the red light and he was the third to go through,” she said. “There is no excuse.” She added: “There is one rule for the council workers and one for the rest of us." Did she report the two preceding vehicles too? Doesn't sound like it so it seems she has her own double standard rules too? BarrHumbug
  • Score: -5

10:07am Mon 10 Feb 14

live-and-let-live says...

sunny1966 wrote:
The driver had been spoken to !!! well thats OK then. Another Corrupt institution that thinks they are above everyone else. One day they will all be made to stand up and be counted. Filth
who is going to do that? no one. they have all put themselves above the law. we have to shut up and accept it.
[quote][p][bold]sunny1966[/bold] wrote: The driver had been spoken to !!! well thats OK then. Another Corrupt institution that thinks they are above everyone else. One day they will all be made to stand up and be counted. Filth[/p][/quote]who is going to do that? no one. they have all put themselves above the law. we have to shut up and accept it. live-and-let-live
  • Score: 3

10:11am Mon 10 Feb 14

theoakman says...

Camera cars and indeed safety camera vans in my opinion actually condone the offence in as much as the don’t actually stop it happening there and then. If an unmarked police car catches you speeding you will be stopped and dealt with. In this way you realise instantly your mistake and drive accordinly. If you are spotted by a camera, there is no incentive to slow down immediately therefore you continue to commit the offence.
Camera cars and indeed safety camera vans in my opinion actually condone the offence in as much as the don’t actually stop it happening there and then. If an unmarked police car catches you speeding you will be stopped and dealt with. In this way you realise instantly your mistake and drive accordinly. If you are spotted by a camera, there is no incentive to slow down immediately therefore you continue to commit the offence. theoakman
  • Score: 9

10:30am Mon 10 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

The night I went to gaol I had been drinking heavily with my dad
even so no need to put me in the nick
The night I went to gaol I had been drinking heavily with my dad even so no need to put me in the nick nickynoodah
  • Score: -13

10:35am Mon 10 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

nickynoodah wrote:
retry69 wrote:
RM wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up
I ended up in gaol for going past a sign
and almost went bankrupt
cost me loads of money to get out .
It's a shame you raised the money.
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.[/p][/quote]Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up[/p][/quote]I ended up in gaol for going past a sign and almost went bankrupt cost me loads of money to get out .[/p][/quote]It's a shame you raised the money. speedy231278
  • Score: 11

10:37am Mon 10 Feb 14

speedy231278 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Deb Simpson - The two cars in front jumped the red light and he was the third to go through,” she said. “There is no excuse.”
She added: “There is one rule for the council workers and one for the rest of us."

Did she report the two preceding vehicles too? Doesn't sound like it so it seems she has her own double standard rules too?
If the camera car was between her and the next two vehicles, how would she identify them? The camera car is easy to identify - it has reflective markings all over it and a bloody great spy camera on top. The only thing more obvious is when developers accidentally cut the roots of trees they weren't allowed to fell.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Deb Simpson - The two cars in front jumped the red light and he was the third to go through,” she said. “There is no excuse.” She added: “There is one rule for the council workers and one for the rest of us." Did she report the two preceding vehicles too? Doesn't sound like it so it seems she has her own double standard rules too?[/p][/quote]If the camera car was between her and the next two vehicles, how would she identify them? The camera car is easy to identify - it has reflective markings all over it and a bloody great spy camera on top. The only thing more obvious is when developers accidentally cut the roots of trees they weren't allowed to fell. speedy231278
  • Score: 14

10:42am Mon 10 Feb 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

I drive at the correct speed and park properly.

I have no cause to get angry at a van.
I drive at the correct speed and park properly. I have no cause to get angry at a van. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -7

10:42am Mon 10 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

"The response from Dorset Road Safety Partnership was: “The safety camera van was on duty at an authorised location. Please submit an FIO (sic) request if you wish further detail.”"

Here we see yet another good example of "I'm following my interpretation of the rules, anything else is someone else's problem" that is so typical of this unaccountable, undemocratic, dangerous, deceitful, greedy, secretive, corrupt, industry.
"The response from Dorset Road Safety Partnership was: “The safety camera van was on duty at an authorised location. Please submit an FIO (sic) request if you wish further detail.”" Here we see yet another good example of "I'm following my interpretation of the rules, anything else is someone else's problem" that is so typical of this unaccountable, undemocratic, dangerous, deceitful, greedy, secretive, corrupt, industry. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 14

10:50am Mon 10 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I drive at the correct speed and park properly.

I have no cause to get angry at a van.
Well you should as just because you are within the law does not mean that they won't try to take money off you incorrectly. Many drivers have accepted fines when they were unsure of the offence because the system penalises you even harder if you don't just roll over and pay the money. You are at greater risk on the roads because those who should be keeping you safe are only thinking about making money. Your roads are more congested, hospitals more overloaded, you insurance premiums higher, etc etc than if we had competent, honest and effective roads policing. Serious and extreme speeders don't get angry at the vans either, they love them as they are so predictable and so easy to avoid.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I drive at the correct speed and park properly. I have no cause to get angry at a van.[/p][/quote]Well you should as just because you are within the law does not mean that they won't try to take money off you incorrectly. Many drivers have accepted fines when they were unsure of the offence because the system penalises you even harder if you don't just roll over and pay the money. You are at greater risk on the roads because those who should be keeping you safe are only thinking about making money. Your roads are more congested, hospitals more overloaded, you insurance premiums higher, etc etc than if we had competent, honest and effective roads policing. Serious and extreme speeders don't get angry at the vans either, they love them as they are so predictable and so easy to avoid. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

11:10am Mon 10 Feb 14

really?? seriously?? says...

spleen wrote:
Ok, A bit of driving law for all you experts: It is not mandatory to stop at a temporary traffic light *if you can see the exit is clear* (unless the law had been changed) There. You can all go back to sleep now (until someone or something else forces a curtain twitch) You're welcome.
Actually the law changed in 1994, so you have to stop as you would do for normal traffic lights.
[quote][p][bold]spleen[/bold] wrote: Ok, A bit of driving law for all you experts: It is not mandatory to stop at a temporary traffic light *if you can see the exit is clear* (unless the law had been changed) There. You can all go back to sleep now (until someone or something else forces a curtain twitch) You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Actually the law changed in 1994, so you have to stop as you would do for normal traffic lights. really?? seriously??
  • Score: 15

11:23am Mon 10 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

speedy231278 wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
retry69 wrote:
RM wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up
I ended up in gaol for going past a sign
and almost went bankrupt
cost me loads of money to get out .
It's a shame you raised the money.
had I been sober I would not have gone to gaol
drunks are gaoled to easily
and its not fair you know.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.[/p][/quote]Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up[/p][/quote]I ended up in gaol for going past a sign and almost went bankrupt cost me loads of money to get out .[/p][/quote]It's a shame you raised the money.[/p][/quote]had I been sober I would not have gone to gaol drunks are gaoled to easily and its not fair you know. nickynoodah
  • Score: -6

12:10pm Mon 10 Feb 14

MrrEdd says...

I believe that under the freedom of information act that the footage from the car's on board camera for that day and time can be requested -surely something can be done with that!!!
I believe that under the freedom of information act that the footage from the car's on board camera for that day and time can be requested -surely something can be done with that!!! MrrEdd
  • Score: 6

12:34pm Mon 10 Feb 14

The Liberal says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I drive at the correct speed and park properly.

I have no cause to get angry at a van.
Well you should as just because you are within the law does not mean that they won't try to take money off you incorrectly. Many drivers have accepted fines when they were unsure of the offence because the system penalises you even harder if you don't just roll over and pay the money. You are at greater risk on the roads because those who should be keeping you safe are only thinking about making money. Your roads are more congested, hospitals more overloaded, you insurance premiums higher, etc etc than if we had competent, honest and effective roads policing. Serious and extreme speeders don't get angry at the vans either, they love them as they are so predictable and so easy to avoid.
While you have a point about the predictability of cameras and vans, I somehow doubt that you'd appreciate a proliferation of hidden cameras!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I drive at the correct speed and park properly. I have no cause to get angry at a van.[/p][/quote]Well you should as just because you are within the law does not mean that they won't try to take money off you incorrectly. Many drivers have accepted fines when they were unsure of the offence because the system penalises you even harder if you don't just roll over and pay the money. You are at greater risk on the roads because those who should be keeping you safe are only thinking about making money. Your roads are more congested, hospitals more overloaded, you insurance premiums higher, etc etc than if we had competent, honest and effective roads policing. Serious and extreme speeders don't get angry at the vans either, they love them as they are so predictable and so easy to avoid.[/p][/quote]While you have a point about the predictability of cameras and vans, I somehow doubt that you'd appreciate a proliferation of hidden cameras! The Liberal
  • Score: 5

12:42pm Mon 10 Feb 14

BarrHumbug says...

Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.
Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 6

12:47pm Mon 10 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I drive at the correct speed and park properly.

I have no cause to get angry at a van.
Well you should as just because you are within the law does not mean that they won't try to take money off you incorrectly. Many drivers have accepted fines when they were unsure of the offence because the system penalises you even harder if you don't just roll over and pay the money. You are at greater risk on the roads because those who should be keeping you safe are only thinking about making money. Your roads are more congested, hospitals more overloaded, you insurance premiums higher, etc etc than if we had competent, honest and effective roads policing. Serious and extreme speeders don't get angry at the vans either, they love them as they are so predictable and so easy to avoid.
While you have a point about the predictability of cameras and vans, I somehow doubt that you'd appreciate a proliferation of hidden cameras!
Actually I may come across as anti - camera but it is not necessarily so. Any methods can be used well or badly. The problem with cameras is that they have provided an easy means for road safety to be taken in the wrong direction. Used properly, they could help with detection of dangerous driving.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I drive at the correct speed and park properly. I have no cause to get angry at a van.[/p][/quote]Well you should as just because you are within the law does not mean that they won't try to take money off you incorrectly. Many drivers have accepted fines when they were unsure of the offence because the system penalises you even harder if you don't just roll over and pay the money. You are at greater risk on the roads because those who should be keeping you safe are only thinking about making money. Your roads are more congested, hospitals more overloaded, you insurance premiums higher, etc etc than if we had competent, honest and effective roads policing. Serious and extreme speeders don't get angry at the vans either, they love them as they are so predictable and so easy to avoid.[/p][/quote]While you have a point about the predictability of cameras and vans, I somehow doubt that you'd appreciate a proliferation of hidden cameras![/p][/quote]Actually I may come across as anti - camera but it is not necessarily so. Any methods can be used well or badly. The problem with cameras is that they have provided an easy means for road safety to be taken in the wrong direction. Used properly, they could help with detection of dangerous driving. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Lord Spring says...

retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
The devil finds work for idle Hans that is why he wrote all those fairy tales.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]The devil finds work for idle Hans that is why he wrote all those fairy tales. Lord Spring
  • Score: 3

12:58pm Mon 10 Feb 14

suzigirl says...

ranger_bob wrote:
suzigirl wrote: Makes a change from cyclists!
You really are just a broken record aren't you? This is about the alledged transgression by the driver of a CAR, nothing to do with cyclists!
Sorry did I wake you up!
[quote][p][bold]ranger_bob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Makes a change from cyclists![/p][/quote]You really are just a broken record aren't you? This is about the alledged transgression by the driver of a CAR, nothing to do with cyclists![/p][/quote]Sorry did I wake you up! suzigirl
  • Score: -11

1:52pm Mon 10 Feb 14

retry69 says...

Lord Spring wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
The devil finds work for idle Hans that is why he wrote all those fairy tales.
Is that Hans the Christian ?
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]The devil finds work for idle Hans that is why he wrote all those fairy tales.[/p][/quote]Is that Hans the Christian ? retry69
  • Score: -2

1:55pm Mon 10 Feb 14

suzigirl says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.
don't forget the cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.[/p][/quote]don't forget the cyclists! suzigirl
  • Score: -7

4:19pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Franks Tank says...

suzigirl wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.
don't forget the cyclists!
And old women on motor bikes.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.[/p][/quote]don't forget the cyclists![/p][/quote]And old women on motor bikes. Franks Tank
  • Score: 7

4:33pm Mon 10 Feb 14

suzigirl says...

Franks Tank wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote: Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.
don't forget the cyclists!
And old women on motor bikes.
Ooooohhh nasty comment you would not be a tad jealous would you? Does your mobility scooter not go very fast then!
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.[/p][/quote]don't forget the cyclists![/p][/quote]And old women on motor bikes.[/p][/quote]Ooooohhh nasty comment you would not be a tad jealous would you? Does your mobility scooter not go very fast then! suzigirl
  • Score: -7

5:29pm Mon 10 Feb 14

notapeopleperson says...

Echo- why exactly have you printed this garbage? whats to say this person hasnt got a dispute with parking services and is just making up complaints? Nothing here is actually confirmed, which is probably the reason the council just "spoke" to the driver. allegedly acording to a member of the public (and the public do have a habit of exaggeration along with your reporters it seems). is there any footage or images of the offence? And no its not one rule for them and us its just there is no fact based evidence to support the allegations.
Echo- why exactly have you printed this garbage? whats to say this person hasnt got a dispute with parking services and is just making up complaints? Nothing here is actually confirmed, which is probably the reason the council just "spoke" to the driver. allegedly acording to a member of the public (and the public do have a habit of exaggeration along with your reporters it seems). is there any footage or images of the offence? And no its not one rule for them and us its just there is no fact based evidence to support the allegations. notapeopleperson
  • Score: 6

5:33pm Mon 10 Feb 14

abc100 says...

If the driver of the car was behind the camera car and stopped at the red light, Deb Simpson must of been going some to catch the camera car up to take the picture so I hope she wasn't speeding herself!!!!
If the driver of the car was behind the camera car and stopped at the red light, Deb Simpson must of been going some to catch the camera car up to take the picture so I hope she wasn't speeding herself!!!! abc100
  • Score: -1

5:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

d15 says...

I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line. d15
  • Score: 4

6:12pm Mon 10 Feb 14

RAMON HH says...

The Dorset Road Safety Partnership have a policy of 'No Excuse' with signs hung from posts all around the Dorset area at great expense. Obviously that policy does not apply to them, the camera van parked on a fast slip road being a good example, without hazard lights on either. These policies of 'Zero' tolerance are fine, provided those that police us and in force the law under these principles are squeaky clean themselves. Sadly that is no longer the case.
The Dorset Road Safety Partnership have a policy of 'No Excuse' with signs hung from posts all around the Dorset area at great expense. Obviously that policy does not apply to them, the camera van parked on a fast slip road being a good example, without hazard lights on either. These policies of 'Zero' tolerance are fine, provided those that police us and in force the law under these principles are squeaky clean themselves. Sadly that is no longer the case. RAMON HH
  • Score: 6

6:32pm Mon 10 Feb 14

GAHmusic says...

nickynoodah wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
retry69 wrote:
RM wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up
I ended up in gaol for going past a sign
and almost went bankrupt
cost me loads of money to get out .
It's a shame you raised the money.
had I been sober I would not have gone to gaol
drunks are gaoled to easily
and its not fair you know.
Were you playing Monopoly by any chance?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.[/p][/quote]Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up[/p][/quote]I ended up in gaol for going past a sign and almost went bankrupt cost me loads of money to get out .[/p][/quote]It's a shame you raised the money.[/p][/quote]had I been sober I would not have gone to gaol drunks are gaoled to easily and its not fair you know.[/p][/quote]Were you playing Monopoly by any chance? GAHmusic
  • Score: -2

7:23pm Mon 10 Feb 14

rayc says...

d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
I think the safety partnership said "You are breaking the law if you cross the stop line when the traffic signals are showing a red light"
In the case of temporary lights the sign with a red background and white lettering saying "When Red Light Shows Stop Here" is the stop line. It may not be an actual line on the ground but it is the legal Stop Line.
[quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]I think the safety partnership said "You are breaking the law if you cross the stop line when the traffic signals are showing a red light" In the case of temporary lights the sign with a red background and white lettering saying "When Red Light Shows Stop Here" is the stop line. It may not be an actual line on the ground but it is the legal Stop Line. rayc
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Mon 10 Feb 14

nickynoodah says...

GAHmusic wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
retry69 wrote:
RM wrote:
retry69 wrote:
As usual some people got too much time on their hands
As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.
Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up
I ended up in gaol for going past a sign
and almost went bankrupt
cost me loads of money to get out .
It's a shame you raised the money.
had I been sober I would not have gone to gaol
drunks are gaoled to easily
and its not fair you know.
Were you playing Monopoly by any chance?
That's right we put the board away till the next winter
I was in gaol 12 months.
[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: As usual some people got too much time on their hands[/p][/quote]As usual, petty officials thinking they"re above the law - and their unelected - and therefore unaccountable - bosses supporting them.[/p][/quote]Yeah of course the driver thought " I will drive through the red light cos I'm the camera car driver I won't get done" ffs grow up[/p][/quote]I ended up in gaol for going past a sign and almost went bankrupt cost me loads of money to get out .[/p][/quote]It's a shame you raised the money.[/p][/quote]had I been sober I would not have gone to gaol drunks are gaoled to easily and its not fair you know.[/p][/quote]Were you playing Monopoly by any chance?[/p][/quote]That's right we put the board away till the next winter I was in gaol 12 months. nickynoodah
  • Score: 4

9:18pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Jetwasher says...

Ahhh ha the scamera car, i like to see the day when someone gets out of there car with a baseball bat and smashes that camera clean of the roof.
Ahhh ha the scamera car, i like to see the day when someone gets out of there car with a baseball bat and smashes that camera clean of the roof. Jetwasher
  • Score: -6

9:35pm Mon 10 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?
[quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Hessenford says...

Same old rhetoric from the council in defence of their employees breaking the law.
Same old rhetoric from the council in defence of their employees breaking the law. Hessenford
  • Score: -7

7:17am Tue 11 Feb 14

tim m says...

Ugh. It now appears that the antics of the council camera van are the taste du jour. There are many press-stopping headlines in our future, I'm sure.
Ugh. It now appears that the antics of the council camera van are the taste du jour. There are many press-stopping headlines in our future, I'm sure. tim m
  • Score: 1

7:24am Tue 11 Feb 14

Baysider says...

Hessenford wrote:
Same old rhetoric from the council in defence of their employees breaking the law.
Same old rhetoric from the Echo posse slagging off the council regardless of the actual facts or evidence.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Same old rhetoric from the council in defence of their employees breaking the law.[/p][/quote]Same old rhetoric from the Echo posse slagging off the council regardless of the actual facts or evidence. Baysider
  • Score: 5

7:43am Tue 11 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?
What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents.

And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit.

A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents. And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit. A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

3:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

jasmith says...

tbpoole wrote:
d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?
But what if the driver mucking about with a phone? Wouldn't be concentrating & wouldn't be expecting a car to be parked at the end of slip road. It IS dangerous because you can't rely on the premise that every driver drives to a high standard expected!
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?[/p][/quote]But what if the driver mucking about with a phone? Wouldn't be concentrating & wouldn't be expecting a car to be parked at the end of slip road. It IS dangerous because you can't rely on the premise that every driver drives to a high standard expected! jasmith
  • Score: -3

4:01pm Tue 11 Feb 14

BarrHumbug says...

suzigirl wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote: Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.
don't forget the cyclists!
And old women on motor bikes.
Ooooohhh nasty comment you would not be a tad jealous would you? Does your mobility scooter not go very fast then!
I should report that post If I were you Suzi, you usually do?
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Big deal, drivers do it every day, its nothing new.[/p][/quote]don't forget the cyclists![/p][/quote]And old women on motor bikes.[/p][/quote]Ooooohhh nasty comment you would not be a tad jealous would you? Does your mobility scooter not go very fast then![/p][/quote]I should report that post If I were you Suzi, you usually do? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 1

4:57pm Tue 11 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?
What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents.

And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit.

A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others.
So if a car came off the road here (when the camera van wasn't around) and hit a lamp post that would be the fault of the lamp post or the driver then?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents. And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit. A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others.[/p][/quote]So if a car came off the road here (when the camera van wasn't around) and hit a lamp post that would be the fault of the lamp post or the driver then? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Tue 11 Feb 14

scrumpyjack says...

jasmith wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?
But what if the driver mucking about with a phone? Wouldn't be concentrating & wouldn't be expecting a car to be parked at the end of slip road. It IS dangerous because you can't rely on the premise that every driver drives to a high standard expected!
Jaw dropping.

I've read some things but you have taken the biscuit.
[quote][p][bold]jasmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?[/p][/quote]But what if the driver mucking about with a phone? Wouldn't be concentrating & wouldn't be expecting a car to be parked at the end of slip road. It IS dangerous because you can't rely on the premise that every driver drives to a high standard expected![/p][/quote]Jaw dropping. I've read some things but you have taken the biscuit. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

6:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?
What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents.

And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit.

A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others.
So if a car came off the road here (when the camera van wasn't around) and hit a lamp post that would be the fault of the lamp post or the driver then?
Who's fault it is in either case is nothing to do with the fact that policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents, just as it is the responsibility of councils to use lampposts that conform to safety standards so that if one is hit anyone getting out of a car is not electrocuted etc. no matter how stupid they have been.

I expect you would be quite happy for anyone stupid enough to crash into a lamppost to be electrocuted, or perhaps for the ambulance crew to turn up to an incident where someone has driven into the back of a speed camera van and to say "what a prat for driving into a stripy van, let's leave them here to die"?

I really don't know what your interest is but it certainly isn't casualty reduction
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents. And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit. A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others.[/p][/quote]So if a car came off the road here (when the camera van wasn't around) and hit a lamp post that would be the fault of the lamp post or the driver then?[/p][/quote]Who's fault it is in either case is nothing to do with the fact that policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents, just as it is the responsibility of councils to use lampposts that conform to safety standards so that if one is hit anyone getting out of a car is not electrocuted etc. no matter how stupid they have been. I expect you would be quite happy for anyone stupid enough to crash into a lamppost to be electrocuted, or perhaps for the ambulance crew to turn up to an incident where someone has driven into the back of a speed camera van and to say "what a prat for driving into a stripy van, let's leave them here to die"? I really don't know what your interest is but it certainly isn't casualty reduction dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

8:12pm Tue 11 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
d15 wrote:
I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park.
Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.
Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?
What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents.

And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit.

A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others.
So if a car came off the road here (when the camera van wasn't around) and hit a lamp post that would be the fault of the lamp post or the driver then?
Who's fault it is in either case is nothing to do with the fact that policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents, just as it is the responsibility of councils to use lampposts that conform to safety standards so that if one is hit anyone getting out of a car is not electrocuted etc. no matter how stupid they have been.

I expect you would be quite happy for anyone stupid enough to crash into a lamppost to be electrocuted, or perhaps for the ambulance crew to turn up to an incident where someone has driven into the back of a speed camera van and to say "what a prat for driving into a stripy van, let's leave them here to die"?

I really don't know what your interest is but it certainly isn't casualty reduction
I was answering the original poster's question, which if you bother to read it again, asks who would be to blame if a car hit the camera van. I have set out two possible scenarios in response, both of which logically indicate that it would be the driver's fault in each case and nothing to do with whether a camera van was present or not.

I said nothing to the effect that I wanted the crash to happen in the first place, or that I was happy that it might, nor did I speculate on the consequences of hitting said post.

I could have quite as easily said a tree on private land, or a telegraph pole, neither of which are the council's responsibility in terms of safety standards.

And talking of stupid comments, how on earth would a 'proper' (whatever that means) traffic cop be expected to spot defective eyesight?

I know what your interest is and it certainly ISN'T casualty reduction.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]d15[/bold] wrote: I've seen the safety parternship camera van parked on the end of the slip road on the exit from oakdale towards tower park. Who is to blame if somebody runs into the back of it. Probably one of the most dangerous places to park. Safety partnership didn't read story before commenting Temporary lights don't have white line.[/p][/quote]Who would be to blame? Presumably any driver too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away and who shouldn't be driving anyway?[/p][/quote]What a ridiculous thing to say, try saying that to the family of the camera operator who might have been killed. Yes most collisions result from bad driving but accidents happen, illness at the wheel, tyre failure, etc. Policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents. And where is Dorset Police's proper risk assessment? Where have they demonstrated that they understand even the basics of proper safety work? All they do is turn a blind eye to the obvious risks in the interest of profit. A proper traffic cop would immediately stop a driver with an obvious eye-sight problem BEFORE they harm themselves or others.[/p][/quote]So if a car came off the road here (when the camera van wasn't around) and hit a lamp post that would be the fault of the lamp post or the driver then?[/p][/quote]Who's fault it is in either case is nothing to do with the fact that policing should be converting accident opportunities into education and / or penalty, not turning accident opportunities into accidents, just as it is the responsibility of councils to use lampposts that conform to safety standards so that if one is hit anyone getting out of a car is not electrocuted etc. no matter how stupid they have been. I expect you would be quite happy for anyone stupid enough to crash into a lamppost to be electrocuted, or perhaps for the ambulance crew to turn up to an incident where someone has driven into the back of a speed camera van and to say "what a prat for driving into a stripy van, let's leave them here to die"? I really don't know what your interest is but it certainly isn't casualty reduction[/p][/quote]I was answering the original poster's question, which if you bother to read it again, asks who would be to blame if a car hit the camera van. I have set out two possible scenarios in response, both of which logically indicate that it would be the driver's fault in each case and nothing to do with whether a camera van was present or not. I said nothing to the effect that I wanted the crash to happen in the first place, or that I was happy that it might, nor did I speculate on the consequences of hitting said post. I could have quite as easily said a tree on private land, or a telegraph pole, neither of which are the council's responsibility in terms of safety standards. And talking of stupid comments, how on earth would a 'proper' (whatever that means) traffic cop be expected to spot defective eyesight? I know what your interest is and it certainly ISN'T casualty reduction. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

8:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

It looked very much as though you were replying to me. I'm not sure who you are arguing with but I don't think it's me, I have explained that road safety responsibilities are different to whose fault accidents may be. The council are responsible for trees , lampposts etc. on roads too. I said "obviously" defective eyesight, if it's obvious, anyone could spot it! (weaving over road etc)
It looked very much as though you were replying to me. I'm not sure who you are arguing with but I don't think it's me, I have explained that road safety responsibilities are different to whose fault accidents may be. The council are responsible for trees , lampposts etc. on roads too. I said "obviously" defective eyesight, if it's obvious, anyone could spot it! (weaving over road etc) dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 11 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
It looked very much as though you were replying to me. I'm not sure who you are arguing with but I don't think it's me, I have explained that road safety responsibilities are different to whose fault accidents may be. The council are responsible for trees , lampposts etc. on roads too. I said "obviously" defective eyesight, if it's obvious, anyone could spot it! (weaving over road etc)
The council are not responsible for trees on private land next to the road, nor are they responsible for BT poles or other things like electricity / gas / telecom cabinets on the paths. And you are confusing responsibilities with powers and duties. A driver is responsible for the way he or she drives, not the council.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: It looked very much as though you were replying to me. I'm not sure who you are arguing with but I don't think it's me, I have explained that road safety responsibilities are different to whose fault accidents may be. The council are responsible for trees , lampposts etc. on roads too. I said "obviously" defective eyesight, if it's obvious, anyone could spot it! (weaving over road etc)[/p][/quote]The council are not responsible for trees on private land next to the road, nor are they responsible for BT poles or other things like electricity / gas / telecom cabinets on the paths. And you are confusing responsibilities with powers and duties. A driver is responsible for the way he or she drives, not the council. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

10:42pm Tue 11 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
It looked very much as though you were replying to me. I'm not sure who you are arguing with but I don't think it's me, I have explained that road safety responsibilities are different to whose fault accidents may be. The council are responsible for trees , lampposts etc. on roads too. I said "obviously" defective eyesight, if it's obvious, anyone could spot it! (weaving over road etc)
The council are not responsible for trees on private land next to the road, nor are they responsible for BT poles or other things like electricity / gas / telecom cabinets on the paths. And you are confusing responsibilities with powers and duties. A driver is responsible for the way he or she drives, not the council.
Oh and I expect there are any number of drivers with defective eyesight - that is, can't read a number plate at the prescribed distance, but who don't weave all over the road.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: It looked very much as though you were replying to me. I'm not sure who you are arguing with but I don't think it's me, I have explained that road safety responsibilities are different to whose fault accidents may be. The council are responsible for trees , lampposts etc. on roads too. I said "obviously" defective eyesight, if it's obvious, anyone could spot it! (weaving over road etc)[/p][/quote]The council are not responsible for trees on private land next to the road, nor are they responsible for BT poles or other things like electricity / gas / telecom cabinets on the paths. And you are confusing responsibilities with powers and duties. A driver is responsible for the way he or she drives, not the council.[/p][/quote]Oh and I expect there are any number of drivers with defective eyesight - that is, can't read a number plate at the prescribed distance, but who don't weave all over the road. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

7:45am Wed 12 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

You're nitpicking again tbpoole, these days any object that makes injuries greater than they might have been no matter the cause can result in the owners of that object public or private to be considered partly responsible for those injuries.

Of course the driver is responsible for how they drive. What you seem to be struggling with is that anyone who deliberately places a vehicle on (and in some cases actually in a fast road) is creating a hazard and should quite rightly be held partly responsible if that hazard results in greater injury than if it had not been there no matter the cause for the accident.

If I parked my car out of choice in a stupid place like a dual carriageway sliproad and someone ran into it and killed themselves I am quite sure I would be held partly responsible. If I had told someone to sit in that car to take pictures then I'm sure I would be held responsible for them.

We're not talking about someone's eyesight not up to the required standard, we're talking about " too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away"
You're nitpicking again tbpoole, these days any object that makes injuries greater than they might have been no matter the cause can result in the owners of that object public or private to be considered partly responsible for those injuries. Of course the driver is responsible for how they drive. What you seem to be struggling with is that anyone who deliberately places a vehicle on (and in some cases actually in a fast road) is creating a hazard and should quite rightly be held partly responsible if that hazard results in greater injury than if it had not been there no matter the cause for the accident. If I parked my car out of choice in a stupid place like a dual carriageway sliproad and someone ran into it and killed themselves I am quite sure I would be held partly responsible. If I had told someone to sit in that car to take pictures then I'm sure I would be held responsible for them. We're not talking about someone's eyesight not up to the required standard, we're talking about " too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away" dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Wed 12 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
You're nitpicking again tbpoole, these days any object that makes injuries greater than they might have been no matter the cause can result in the owners of that object public or private to be considered partly responsible for those injuries.

Of course the driver is responsible for how they drive. What you seem to be struggling with is that anyone who deliberately places a vehicle on (and in some cases actually in a fast road) is creating a hazard and should quite rightly be held partly responsible if that hazard results in greater injury than if it had not been there no matter the cause for the accident.

If I parked my car out of choice in a stupid place like a dual carriageway sliproad and someone ran into it and killed themselves I am quite sure I would be held partly responsible. If I had told someone to sit in that car to take pictures then I'm sure I would be held responsible for them.

We're not talking about someone's eyesight not up to the required standard, we're talking about " too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away"
I think you'll find you are wrong on your first comment. I think it very unlikely that a private landowner or utility company would be prosecuted just because a driver hit their tree/post/whatever. Otherwise we wouldn't have anything on the side of the road and all trees within a few feet of the kerb edge would have to be chopped down or barriered off.

Lorries have been known to crash into the back of other vehicles parked on the hard shoulder of a motorway but they are much more likely to prosecute the lorry driver if driving carelessly than the other vehicle for just being there.

The worst that the van could be considered is a minor distraction, not a hazard. A driver is hardly going to steer into the back of the parked vehicle just because it is there.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You're nitpicking again tbpoole, these days any object that makes injuries greater than they might have been no matter the cause can result in the owners of that object public or private to be considered partly responsible for those injuries. Of course the driver is responsible for how they drive. What you seem to be struggling with is that anyone who deliberately places a vehicle on (and in some cases actually in a fast road) is creating a hazard and should quite rightly be held partly responsible if that hazard results in greater injury than if it had not been there no matter the cause for the accident. If I parked my car out of choice in a stupid place like a dual carriageway sliproad and someone ran into it and killed themselves I am quite sure I would be held partly responsible. If I had told someone to sit in that car to take pictures then I'm sure I would be held responsible for them. We're not talking about someone's eyesight not up to the required standard, we're talking about " too short sighted to see the stonking big yellow and red chevrons on the back of the van visible from half a mile away"[/p][/quote]I think you'll find you are wrong on your first comment. I think it very unlikely that a private landowner or utility company would be prosecuted just because a driver hit their tree/post/whatever. Otherwise we wouldn't have anything on the side of the road and all trees within a few feet of the kerb edge would have to be chopped down or barriered off. Lorries have been known to crash into the back of other vehicles parked on the hard shoulder of a motorway but they are much more likely to prosecute the lorry driver if driving carelessly than the other vehicle for just being there. The worst that the van could be considered is a minor distraction, not a hazard. A driver is hardly going to steer into the back of the parked vehicle just because it is there. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

8:23am Thu 13 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

good grief (again) tbpoole, let me put this as simply as I can. There is obviously a potential that if a vehicle is parked on a dual carriageway sliproad with a person inside that an accident could occur that otherwise would not have and that injuries could be more serious, than if the vehicle was not there. There is therefore a risk. Dorset Police would tell us that the only reason it's there is to reduce accidents and injuries (although of course we all know it's just there to make money).

Dorset Police not only fail to recognise the risk themselves but actively refuse to accept them even when they are explained to them. This is negligent and against simple fundamental principles of any kind of safety work, not to mention integrity, code of conduct, breach of duty of care, etc.

Can you show me where Dorset Police have published a proper validated risk assessment where they have accounted for the risks and demonstrated that there is a net positive effect for speed camera vans? I haven't been able to find anything.
good grief (again) tbpoole, let me put this as simply as I can. There is obviously a potential that if a vehicle is parked on a dual carriageway sliproad with a person inside that an accident could occur that otherwise would not have and that injuries could be more serious, than if the vehicle was not there. There is therefore a risk. Dorset Police would tell us that the only reason it's there is to reduce accidents and injuries (although of course we all know it's just there to make money). Dorset Police not only fail to recognise the risk themselves but actively refuse to accept them even when they are explained to them. This is negligent and against simple fundamental principles of any kind of safety work, not to mention integrity, code of conduct, breach of duty of care, etc. Can you show me where Dorset Police have published a proper validated risk assessment where they have accounted for the risks and demonstrated that there is a net positive effect for speed camera vans? I haven't been able to find anything. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

9:39pm Thu 13 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
good grief (again) tbpoole, let me put this as simply as I can. There is obviously a potential that if a vehicle is parked on a dual carriageway sliproad with a person inside that an accident could occur that otherwise would not have and that injuries could be more serious, than if the vehicle was not there. There is therefore a risk. Dorset Police would tell us that the only reason it's there is to reduce accidents and injuries (although of course we all know it's just there to make money).

Dorset Police not only fail to recognise the risk themselves but actively refuse to accept them even when they are explained to them. This is negligent and against simple fundamental principles of any kind of safety work, not to mention integrity, code of conduct, breach of duty of care, etc.

Can you show me where Dorset Police have published a proper validated risk assessment where they have accounted for the risks and demonstrated that there is a net positive effect for speed camera vans? I haven't been able to find anything.
Do you know the difference between a risk and a hazard, and what a risk assessment actually is, because you don't appear to know?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: good grief (again) tbpoole, let me put this as simply as I can. There is obviously a potential that if a vehicle is parked on a dual carriageway sliproad with a person inside that an accident could occur that otherwise would not have and that injuries could be more serious, than if the vehicle was not there. There is therefore a risk. Dorset Police would tell us that the only reason it's there is to reduce accidents and injuries (although of course we all know it's just there to make money). Dorset Police not only fail to recognise the risk themselves but actively refuse to accept them even when they are explained to them. This is negligent and against simple fundamental principles of any kind of safety work, not to mention integrity, code of conduct, breach of duty of care, etc. Can you show me where Dorset Police have published a proper validated risk assessment where they have accounted for the risks and demonstrated that there is a net positive effect for speed camera vans? I haven't been able to find anything.[/p][/quote]Do you know the difference between a risk and a hazard, and what a risk assessment actually is, because you don't appear to know? tbpoole
  • Score: 1

7:08am Fri 14 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Nitpicking again tbpoole, risk, hazard, whatever, it is still irresponsible not to manage it properly.
Nitpicking again tbpoole, risk, hazard, whatever, it is still irresponsible not to manage it properly. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

7:24am Fri 14 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

Of course I know the difference between hazard and risk and a vehicle parked in a fast moving road presents both.
Of course I know the difference between hazard and risk and a vehicle parked in a fast moving road presents both. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

11:20pm Fri 14 Feb 14

DorsetSaint says...

isn't this road marked as a clearway? which means no stopping,

anyway this story started about the camera car for parking offences,

why did PBC spend £67k on a car and camera when an ordinary car, a uniformed traffice warden and a £100 digi camera would do the same job?
isn't this road marked as a clearway? which means no stopping, anyway this story started about the camera car for parking offences, why did PBC spend £67k on a car and camera when an ordinary car, a uniformed traffice warden and a £100 digi camera would do the same job? DorsetSaint
  • Score: 2

4:35pm Sat 15 Feb 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Of course I know the difference between hazard and risk and a vehicle parked in a fast moving road presents both.
Just ably demonstrated that you don't know the difference between the two then....I thought you were a safety expert?

Shall I explain? Lots of things may be potential hazards - an aeroplane could drop out of the sky in front of you - but the risk is the likelihood of an incident resulting in injury happening, which is extremely low in most cases.

A traffic cop following behind you could be deemed a hazard because one possible outcome is that you will keep looking in the mirror and drive into the car in front. So your preferred solution of lots of traffic police is potentially as risky then in your estimation?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Of course I know the difference between hazard and risk and a vehicle parked in a fast moving road presents both.[/p][/quote]Just ably demonstrated that you don't know the difference between the two then....I thought you were a safety expert? Shall I explain? Lots of things may be potential hazards - an aeroplane could drop out of the sky in front of you - but the risk is the likelihood of an incident resulting in injury happening, which is extremely low in most cases. A traffic cop following behind you could be deemed a hazard because one possible outcome is that you will keep looking in the mirror and drive into the car in front. So your preferred solution of lots of traffic police is potentially as risky then in your estimation? tbpoole
  • Score: 1

4:59pm Sat 15 Feb 14

dorsetspeed says...

I would rather chew my own arms off than get into a debate with you about risk and hazard, but you are quite right, a cop car following you can be a distraction. In fact, it is difficult to do anything which has only the intended outcome, there are almost always unintended negative effects.

This is why any proper road safety activity should have a proper risk assessment and the activity should not proceed without a conclusion that the intention is likely to actually result, and Dorset Police are negligent and incompetent to be interfering with traffic not just without a proper balanced risk assessment but actively turning a blind eye to obvious hazards.

Partly for the reason you mention, the best form of roads policing is unmarked cars / bikes.
I would rather chew my own arms off than get into a debate with you about risk and hazard, but you are quite right, a cop car following you can be a distraction. In fact, it is difficult to do anything which has only the intended outcome, there are almost always unintended negative effects. This is why any proper road safety activity should have a proper risk assessment and the activity should not proceed without a conclusion that the intention is likely to actually result, and Dorset Police are negligent and incompetent to be interfering with traffic not just without a proper balanced risk assessment but actively turning a blind eye to obvious hazards. Partly for the reason you mention, the best form of roads policing is unmarked cars / bikes. dorsetspeed
  • 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