Police speed camera van on Dorset Way ‘put drivers at risk’ say campaigners

Police speed camera van on Dorset Way ‘put drivers at risk’ say campaigners

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: The camera car parked on "a little hard shoulder"

Ian Belchamber

First published in News by

CAMPAIGNERS have criticised police for parking a speed camera car in a “dangerous” position alongside Poole’s busy Dorset Way.

These photos were taken of the van on Monday morning, then posted on the anti-mobile speed camera website Dorset Speed.

Ian Belchamber, of Dorset Speed, who has been crusading against speed cameras on Dorset’s roads for years, claimed: “This van clearly presents a risk.”

He explained: “There is a safety barrier there, presumably to stop any wayward vehicles from going down the slope.

“If there’s a possibility a vehicle is out of control, it’s going to be a whole lot worse if there’s a van there to crash into. It’s also very dangerous for the person inside the van.”

Mr Belchamber describes the area where the van is parked as more like a “little hard shoulder” than a pavement.

“As we all know,” he said.

“You don’t stay in a vehicle on the hard shoulder for risk of being hit.

“Whatever way you look at it, this does represent a danger. So what I am asking is a simple thing. I’m asking for Dorset Police to recognise and explain they understand the risks, then demonstrate a positive safety balance.”

Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs.

Mr Belchamber and Dorset Speed have been campaigning for the suspension of mobile speed camera operations ever since the death of Burley motorcyclist Timothy Rowsell on Bournemouth’s A338 Spur Road in April 2011.

At the subsequent inquest into Mr Rowsell’s death, Bournemouth Coroner Sheriff Payne concluded the biker lost control after braking in response to the presence of a safety camera van at the side of the road.

Dorset Speed’s website calls for all mobile camera operations to be halted until “an independent and proper investigation into effectiveness of all speed cameras, taking into account such negative effects, has been fully completed.”

A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”

Comments (263)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:26am Wed 5 Mar 14

retry69 says...

Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras. retry69
  • Score: -175

6:34am Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

I like the use of the word "campaigners". I thought he acted totally alone.
I like the use of the word "campaigners". I thought he acted totally alone. tbpoole
  • Score: -108

6:58am Wed 5 Mar 14

alasdair1967 says...

I have always questioned the positioning of these vans where are they found during rush hours/school runs ? On dual carriageways where they can make maximum fines from people rushing to get to work ,rather see them positioned outside of schools to catch the view idiots that speed in those areas at that time
I have always questioned the positioning of these vans where are they found during rush hours/school runs ? On dual carriageways where they can make maximum fines from people rushing to get to work ,rather see them positioned outside of schools to catch the view idiots that speed in those areas at that time alasdair1967
  • Score: 184

7:14am Wed 5 Mar 14

cheeriedriteup says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I have always questioned the positioning of these vans where are they found during rush hours/school runs ? On dual carriageways where they can make maximum fines from people rushing to get to work ,rather see them positioned outside of schools to catch the view idiots that speed in those areas at that time
I agree totally, let's use the dual carriageway at Bearwood between the clock and the bear cross roundabouts as the example! If this van is for safety reasons then why is it also trying to catch the vehicles going down the carriageway rather than being on the other side where the school is, wouldn't a fixed camera on the school side be more beneficial - not financially viable maybe ? Also in Wimbourne opposite Stoney lane I think it is, the only thing there is a Cemetary , is this located so these guys can rest in piece ?
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I have always questioned the positioning of these vans where are they found during rush hours/school runs ? On dual carriageways where they can make maximum fines from people rushing to get to work ,rather see them positioned outside of schools to catch the view idiots that speed in those areas at that time[/p][/quote]I agree totally, let's use the dual carriageway at Bearwood between the clock and the bear cross roundabouts as the example! If this van is for safety reasons then why is it also trying to catch the vehicles going down the carriageway rather than being on the other side where the school is, wouldn't a fixed camera on the school side be more beneficial - not financially viable maybe ? Also in Wimbourne opposite Stoney lane I think it is, the only thing there is a Cemetary , is this located so these guys can rest in piece ? cheeriedriteup
  • Score: 84

7:32am Wed 5 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians. ashleycross
  • Score: -111

7:34am Wed 5 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

And another thing, boycott the AA who have a history of campaigning against speed limits. That's why they spend so much money on adverts to try to make themselves look safe and dependable.
And another thing, boycott the AA who have a history of campaigning against speed limits. That's why they spend so much money on adverts to try to make themselves look safe and dependable. ashleycross
  • Score: -94

7:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

alasdair1967 says...

ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight alasdair1967
  • Score: -18

7:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

I should point out that the picture was originally posted on the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notifications group, not the Dorset Speed group
I should point out that the picture was originally posted on the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notifications group, not the Dorset Speed group dorsetspeed
  • Score: 39

7:44am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money dorsetspeed
  • Score: 81

7:45am Wed 5 Mar 14

jayelec says...

Yesterday it was way further up virtually on the top of the fly over at fleets bridge
Yesterday it was way further up virtually on the top of the fly over at fleets bridge jayelec
  • Score: 22

7:46am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money.
[quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 81

7:52am Wed 5 Mar 14

retry69 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
stupid and irresponsible comment in my humble opinion
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]stupid and irresponsible comment in my humble opinion retry69
  • Score: -98

7:56am Wed 5 Mar 14

Wesoblind says...

Bored of the cow poo of speed cameras, everyday i have to avoid accidents on 30 mph roads and 70 mph roads and guess what 100% of the time i can honestly say speed is never a factor! Where are the police when someone cuts you up etc? I waved franticly at a police officer in his car alerting him to the fact of the citreon piccaso full of kids with no seatbelts on sat at 40 mph 20cm off my back bumper, he just looked at me puzzled and oblivious!

I have a dashcam in my car and recored all the idiots but what would the police do if i gave it to them? NOTHING!.

I seriously am contemplating buying an old granada and welding in a rollcage etc and stop avoiding the idiots, so if i get cut up, pulled out infront of, people not indicating. i will not make any effort to avoid them and soon their insurance will price them off the road.
Bored of the cow poo of speed cameras, everyday i have to avoid accidents on 30 mph roads and 70 mph roads and guess what 100% of the time i can honestly say speed is never a factor! Where are the police when someone cuts you up etc? I waved franticly at a police officer in his car alerting him to the fact of the citreon piccaso full of kids with no seatbelts on sat at 40 mph 20cm off my back bumper, he just looked at me puzzled and oblivious! I have a dashcam in my car and recored all the idiots but what would the police do if i gave it to them? NOTHING!. I seriously am contemplating buying an old granada and welding in a rollcage etc and stop avoiding the idiots, so if i get cut up, pulled out infront of, people not indicating. i will not make any effort to avoid them and soon their insurance will price them off the road. Wesoblind
  • Score: 84

7:56am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

retry69, would you like to explain? What is it you disagree with and why?

More recent dangerous camera sightings:

http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/140.a
spx

http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/141.a
spx
retry69, would you like to explain? What is it you disagree with and why? More recent dangerous camera sightings: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/140.a spx http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/141.a spx dorsetspeed
  • Score: 39

8:06am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight
There is another way to improve respect of speed limits - to set them properly. Poole Council measured an average speed on this road of 62, any proper engineer will tell you that the limit of 70 was entirely appropriate. But (apparently without even considering if they should try to police the existing limit properly) they set it at 50, 20% below the average speed, against DFT guidance, common sense and protest, not on any safety grounds but because they thought a 60 limit would be appropriate but they thought 60 might be "confusing". !!!!!!

I'll have to try and remember that excuse if I get caught, "sorry officer, there are some numbers I find confusing" !

I believe Dorset Police supported the reduction, how strange that this is now the second most profitable mobile location after the A338 where the motorcyclist died resulting from the van, and just as, if not more, dangerous
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight[/p][/quote]There is another way to improve respect of speed limits - to set them properly. Poole Council measured an average speed on this road of 62, any proper engineer will tell you that the limit of 70 was entirely appropriate. But (apparently without even considering if they should try to police the existing limit properly) they set it at 50, 20% below the average speed, against DFT guidance, common sense and protest, not on any safety grounds but because they thought a 60 limit would be appropriate but they thought 60 might be "confusing". !!!!!! I'll have to try and remember that excuse if I get caught, "sorry officer, there are some numbers I find confusing" ! I believe Dorset Police supported the reduction, how strange that this is now the second most profitable mobile location after the A338 where the motorcyclist died resulting from the van, and just as, if not more, dangerous dorsetspeed
  • Score: 82

8:07am Wed 5 Mar 14

Tingleyone says...

I find Mr Belchamber and his attitude laudable.As he states, this is not about speed, but where the Vans are being parked up. It is about safety for drivers of those vans, and also the rest of us sensible drivers.

Would any of you park on the side of a busy road if you had broken down, and remain in your vehicle? I would hope not, and it is not recommended.

Speed can, and does kill, but in modern cars, the safety features are now immense, including far better braking, which can add to the accidents if you are not paying attention all the time. Radio? Cigarette? Quick glance away from the front, and BANG.

Just my humble opinion.
I find Mr Belchamber and his attitude laudable.As he states, this is not about speed, but where the Vans are being parked up. It is about safety for drivers of those vans, and also the rest of us sensible drivers. Would any of you park on the side of a busy road if you had broken down, and remain in your vehicle? I would hope not, and it is not recommended. Speed can, and does kill, but in modern cars, the safety features are now immense, including far better braking, which can add to the accidents if you are not paying attention all the time. Radio? Cigarette? Quick glance away from the front, and BANG. Just my humble opinion. Tingleyone
  • Score: 40

8:13am Wed 5 Mar 14

retry69 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69, would you like to explain? What is it you disagree with and why?

More recent dangerous camera sightings:

http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk/news/140.a

spx

http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk/news/141.a

spx
Your implications that the police are making our roads more dangerous when anyone using our roads on a daily basis knows who are the culprits
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: retry69, would you like to explain? What is it you disagree with and why? More recent dangerous camera sightings: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/140.a spx http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/141.a spx[/p][/quote]Your implications that the police are making our roads more dangerous when anyone using our roads on a daily basis knows who are the culprits retry69
  • Score: -51

8:21am Wed 5 Mar 14

vicjoaid says...

There have been instances of the camera van being parked at the end of the 'onslip' road from the Toys R Us junction. This is particularly dangerous as you are concentrating on getting up to 50 mph to join the dual carriageway, plus watching behind for cars to allow you in, then there is an 'offslip' at the end of this particular place where drivers are coming back over. On top of this you have a camera van that is obstructing the lane!! We have enough to deal with on our roads without these vans making it worse!
The van has been parked half on and half off the dual carriageway near to the slip road too. Any bikes or pedestrians would have to go onto the grass or out onto the busy road to go around it!!
This is just two examples that I have personally seen!
Come on, some of these places cannot be justified and deemede safe surely!!?? If it was a member of the public they would have a ticket-I am pretty sure of that!
There have been instances of the camera van being parked at the end of the 'onslip' road from the Toys R Us junction. This is particularly dangerous as you are concentrating on getting up to 50 mph to join the dual carriageway, plus watching behind for cars to allow you in, then there is an 'offslip' at the end of this particular place where drivers are coming back over. On top of this you have a camera van that is obstructing the lane!! We have enough to deal with on our roads without these vans making it worse! The van has been parked half on and half off the dual carriageway near to the slip road too. Any bikes or pedestrians would have to go onto the grass or out onto the busy road to go around it!! This is just two examples that I have personally seen! Come on, some of these places cannot be justified and deemede safe surely!!?? If it was a member of the public they would have a ticket-I am pretty sure of that! vicjoaid
  • Score: 80

8:24am Wed 5 Mar 14

djd says...

Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras.
But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers.
I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous.
A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing.
A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead.
If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round.
But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal.
Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras. But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers. I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous. A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing. A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead. If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round. But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal. djd
  • Score: 20

8:25am Wed 5 Mar 14

TheDerv says...

tbpoole wrote:
I like the use of the word "campaigners". I thought he acted totally alone.
There are currently just over 6500 of us.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: I like the use of the word "campaigners". I thought he acted totally alone.[/p][/quote]There are currently just over 6500 of us. TheDerv
  • Score: 38

8:31am Wed 5 Mar 14

PEstates says...

Numerous times i have been following a driver at the correct speed limit and the car in front has braked hard on sight of one these vans.
It was only a couple of months ago where i had to "dodge" one that was parked at the end of SLIPROAD!
How some of the sites chosen can be justified for road safety is beyond me
Don't get me wrong im not against camera vans completely when used outside schools or old age peoples homes.
May i please note i have never been done for speeding and have a clean driving licence!
Numerous times i have been following a driver at the correct speed limit and the car in front has braked hard on sight of one these vans. It was only a couple of months ago where i had to "dodge" one that was parked at the end of SLIPROAD! How some of the sites chosen can be justified for road safety is beyond me Don't get me wrong im not against camera vans completely when used outside schools or old age peoples homes. May i please note i have never been done for speeding and have a clean driving licence! PEstates
  • Score: 58

8:33am Wed 5 Mar 14

N Smith says...

I have seen people swerve in front of me on this particular bend when they have spotted the camera.Doesnt matter if you are driving correctly if someone drives into you at that speed it's going to be serious .Very stupid and dangerous place to put the van.
I have seen people swerve in front of me on this particular bend when they have spotted the camera.Doesnt matter if you are driving correctly if someone drives into you at that speed it's going to be serious .Very stupid and dangerous place to put the van. N Smith
  • Score: 50

8:34am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

retry69 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69, would you like to explain? What is it you disagree with and why?

More recent dangerous camera sightings:

http://www.dorsetspe


ed.org.uk/news/140.a


spx

http://www.dorsetspe


ed.org.uk/news/141.a


spx
Your implications that the police are making our roads more dangerous when anyone using our roads on a daily basis knows who are the culprits
Yes, they are making them more dangerous, if you were going off the road for any reason (illness etc) would you prefer to glance along a safety barrier or hit a big van? Yes, anyone using our roads knows who the culprits are: boy racers (who are very good at avoiding camera detection), tailgaters, drunk drivers, criminals, road ragers, etc etc.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: retry69, would you like to explain? What is it you disagree with and why? More recent dangerous camera sightings: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/140.a spx http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/141.a spx[/p][/quote]Your implications that the police are making our roads more dangerous when anyone using our roads on a daily basis knows who are the culprits[/p][/quote]Yes, they are making them more dangerous, if you were going off the road for any reason (illness etc) would you prefer to glance along a safety barrier or hit a big van? Yes, anyone using our roads knows who the culprits are: boy racers (who are very good at avoiding camera detection), tailgaters, drunk drivers, criminals, road ragers, etc etc. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 28

8:35am Wed 5 Mar 14

In Absentia says...

Perhaps Jim Durkin would like to explain who these 'campaigners' really are? As far as I know, Mr Bellchamber is Dorset Speed, a one man band who gets an excess of local media coverage.

As for that particular camera site, I'd say it was a good one for a change. There are loads of drivers who hammer down the hill towards the bridge and then have to slam on the brakes when they find the traffic is queued. Still, as long as an Echo journalist can get a story without leaving the office, who cares, eh?
Perhaps Jim Durkin would like to explain who these 'campaigners' really are? As far as I know, Mr Bellchamber is Dorset Speed, a one man band who gets an excess of local media coverage. As for that particular camera site, I'd say it was a good one for a change. There are loads of drivers who hammer down the hill towards the bridge and then have to slam on the brakes when they find the traffic is queued. Still, as long as an Echo journalist can get a story without leaving the office, who cares, eh? In Absentia
  • Score: -48

8:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

N Smith says...

I would also like to point out ,what have the police done to stop the jap racing club meeting at the dfs car park and racing around the streets to the early hours of the morning? Absolutley nothing
I would also like to point out ,what have the police done to stop the jap racing club meeting at the dfs car park and racing around the streets to the early hours of the morning? Absolutley nothing N Smith
  • Score: 19

8:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

trolley says...

Dangerous revenue raising and vindictive,still i spose it beats catching criminals
Dangerous revenue raising and vindictive,still i spose it beats catching criminals trolley
  • Score: 31

8:42am Wed 5 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
If I were to park where this van is for a cup of tea I'm sure that I would receive a ticket for illegal parking, this story is not about speeding motorists although I'm sure you will try to turn it that way, this story is about a van parked illegally in an attempt to detect illegal acts, that should not be allowed to happen.
The thumbs down by commenter's on here this morning surely shows that they disagree with the illegal positioning of this van but also, in some cases, support the need for some sort of speed enforcement provided that the enforcers also follow the laws of the road.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]If I were to park where this van is for a cup of tea I'm sure that I would receive a ticket for illegal parking, this story is not about speeding motorists although I'm sure you will try to turn it that way, this story is about a van parked illegally in an attempt to detect illegal acts, that should not be allowed to happen. The thumbs down by commenter's on here this morning surely shows that they disagree with the illegal positioning of this van but also, in some cases, support the need for some sort of speed enforcement provided that the enforcers also follow the laws of the road. Hessenford
  • Score: 47

8:45am Wed 5 Mar 14

epswat says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight
I totally agree with you, with the caveat that the Speed Limits set are both sensible and appropriate. Please explain to me how a 50MPH limit on a Dual Carriageway designed for 70MPH is either of these things?
The other issue with setting speed limits to low is that you encourage people to drive in a lazy and inattentive fashion. I have lost count of the number of people I have passed who are not even aware of my presence on the road. They do not check mirrors, have no spatial awareness and are often more interested in talking to passengers/fiddling with radio/using a phone. All of these things are imo far more dangerous that driving at 60MPH on a road designed for 70MPH, however this 'crime' will get you a punishment that is disproportionate to the offence compared to some standard of driving that I see on the roads of Dorset every day. If Dorset Safety were serious about saving lives, they would use the money they spend on these Revenue Raising Camera's to put more Police on the Roads. More appropriate Speed limits would also help as well. Would you agree alasdair1967 that a 40MPH limit outside a school is more inappropriate than 50MPH on a Dual Carriageway. The School in question is Poole Grammar School in case you were wondering.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight[/p][/quote]I totally agree with you, with the caveat that the Speed Limits set are both sensible and appropriate. Please explain to me how a 50MPH limit on a Dual Carriageway designed for 70MPH is either of these things? The other issue with setting speed limits to low is that you encourage people to drive in a lazy and inattentive fashion. I have lost count of the number of people I have passed who are not even aware of my presence on the road. They do not check mirrors, have no spatial awareness and are often more interested in talking to passengers/fiddling with radio/using a phone. All of these things are imo far more dangerous that driving at 60MPH on a road designed for 70MPH, however this 'crime' will get you a punishment that is disproportionate to the offence compared to some standard of driving that I see on the roads of Dorset every day. If Dorset Safety were serious about saving lives, they would use the money they spend on these Revenue Raising Camera's to put more Police on the Roads. More appropriate Speed limits would also help as well. Would you agree alasdair1967 that a 40MPH limit outside a school is more inappropriate than 50MPH on a Dual Carriageway. The School in question is Poole Grammar School in case you were wondering. epswat
  • Score: 27

8:45am Wed 5 Mar 14

billy bumble says...

The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law
The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law billy bumble
  • Score: 32

8:47am Wed 5 Mar 14

mark.s says...

I have seen these vans parked in the most idiotic of places. On this Dorset Way of all roads there are a couple of very short (rather dangerous) onward slip roads where it's bad enough normally. But then the Police stick a camera van right next to it making everyone panic about and adding that extra variable to the situation which will make an accident far MORE likely than if they just let everyone get on with it.

I've been stupid enough to get flashed speeding once, and I attended the speed awareness course they provide. During that course, you learn about the dangers of different types of road. And they tell you that dual carriageways are actually among the SAFEST type of road - because all the traffic is heading in one direction at generally a consistent and predictable speed.

So if these roads are the among the safest, why the need for sneaky vans? The only conclusion we can take, is that when on dual carriageways these vans are there to catch people out and make money, rather than with safety in mind.

Speed cameras should be put next to schools.
I have seen these vans parked in the most idiotic of places. On this Dorset Way of all roads there are a couple of very short (rather dangerous) onward slip roads where it's bad enough normally. But then the Police stick a camera van right next to it making everyone panic about and adding that extra variable to the situation which will make an accident far MORE likely than if they just let everyone get on with it. I've been stupid enough to get flashed speeding once, and I attended the speed awareness course they provide. During that course, you learn about the dangers of different types of road. And they tell you that dual carriageways are actually among the SAFEST type of road - because all the traffic is heading in one direction at generally a consistent and predictable speed. So if these roads are the among the safest, why the need for sneaky vans? The only conclusion we can take, is that when on dual carriageways these vans are there to catch people out and make money, rather than with safety in mind. Speed cameras should be put next to schools. mark.s
  • Score: 46

8:49am Wed 5 Mar 14

epswat says...

djd wrote:
Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras.
But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers.
I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous.
A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing.
A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead.
If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round.
But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal.
Totally agree. I feel the lowering of speed limits has actually increased the number of drivers who pay little attention to the act of driving a car. This is far more dangerous that driving a few MPH over artificially low speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras. But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers. I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous. A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing. A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead. If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round. But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. I feel the lowering of speed limits has actually increased the number of drivers who pay little attention to the act of driving a car. This is far more dangerous that driving a few MPH over artificially low speed limit. epswat
  • Score: 24

8:50am Wed 5 Mar 14

hooplaa says...

I recently attended a driver awareness programme and was told most of the fatal and serious injury accidents occur in town centres and built up areas. These vans can only been seen after a corner on a dual carriageway or main A road to make maximum fine revenue. Never see the van parked in a town centre. I wonder why...
I recently attended a driver awareness programme and was told most of the fatal and serious injury accidents occur in town centres and built up areas. These vans can only been seen after a corner on a dual carriageway or main A road to make maximum fine revenue. Never see the van parked in a town centre. I wonder why... hooplaa
  • Score: 40

8:51am Wed 5 Mar 14

epswat says...

djd wrote:
Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras.
But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers.
I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous.
A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing.
A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead.
If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round.
But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal.
Totally agree. I feel the lowering of speed limits has actually increased the number of drivers who pay little attention to the act of driving a car. This is far more dangerous that driving a few MPH over artificially low speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras. But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers. I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous. A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing. A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead. If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round. But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. I feel the lowering of speed limits has actually increased the number of drivers who pay little attention to the act of driving a car. This is far more dangerous that driving a few MPH over artificially low speed limit. epswat
  • Score: 14

8:51am Wed 5 Mar 14

epswat says...

djd wrote:
Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras.
But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers.
I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous.
A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing.
A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead.
If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round.
But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal.
Totally agree. I feel the lowering of speed limits has actually increased the number of drivers who pay little attention to the act of driving a car. This is far more dangerous that driving a few MPH over artificially low speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: Drive sensibly and within the speed limits and there is no need for speed cameras. But that would be too basic for a lot of Dorset's drivers. I find many of them arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous. A lot have no sense of traffic perception and I'm sure never use their mirrors or look to their sides to see what that traffic around them is doing. A lot of Dorset drivers remind me of the plough horse with the eye shades that can only look straight ahead. If drivers were to raise their standard of driving, it would be an improvement all round. But who is there to enforce driving standards?? The presence of traffic police here or anywhere is minimal.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. I feel the lowering of speed limits has actually increased the number of drivers who pay little attention to the act of driving a car. This is far more dangerous that driving a few MPH over artificially low speed limit. epswat
  • Score: 13

8:52am Wed 5 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

billy bumble wrote:
The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law
Apparently they are.
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law[/p][/quote]Apparently they are. Hessenford
  • Score: 10

9:01am Wed 5 Mar 14

TheDerv says...

Does anyone remember the traffic enforcement camera car jumping temporary traffic lights a couple of weeks ago? This followed hot on the heels of the traffic enforcement camera car being caught speeding, both duly reported by the Echo.

For all those out there with the same old response we see in the comments section of these articles about speed cameras, I ask you this. If a person who is paid to ensure others obey traffic laws, cannot obey them themselves, does that not prove how easy it is for honest motorists to get caught out by this type of traffic enforcement. I guarantee that the driver of the traffic enforcement camera car does everything in their power to ensure they obey the traffic laws, after all, their job is probably on the line if they get caught breaking them. But not everyone is perfect, and honest mistakes happen. The majority of people are in support of speed enforcement, I think it is an essential part of policing the roads, but it is questionable tactics by the Road Safety Partnership in order to drive revenue that irritates most. £110 to attend a driver awareness course run by a couple of retired police officers, they must be making money hand over fist. Businesses are expected to disclose their profits, so why is this allowed to be hidden from the public? We see no evidence of the revenue generated by these road safety vans being put back into the road system to make things safer for motorists. The junction at limberlost desperately needs widening, the duel carriageway from safety roundabout towards Wareham needs the drainage fixed (standing water and black ice cause a lot of accidents on that road every year) and street lighting.

If safety is the primary concern here, why do they not send the police officers into 6th Form colleges and University’s, giving free 2 hour lectures on the dangers on the road? After all we are always told that young people are at more risk of having a serious accident. They could offer little road safety courses for primary/middle school children. Crossing the road, wearing seatbelts and such like.
The fact is, the Dorset Road Safety Partnership is operated like a profitable business, under the cloak of being almost charitable. It is disgusting.
Does anyone remember the traffic enforcement camera car jumping temporary traffic lights a couple of weeks ago? This followed hot on the heels of the traffic enforcement camera car being caught speeding, both duly reported by the Echo. For all those out there with the same old response we see in the comments section of these articles about speed cameras, I ask you this. If a person who is paid to ensure others obey traffic laws, cannot obey them themselves, does that not prove how easy it is for honest motorists to get caught out by this type of traffic enforcement. I guarantee that the driver of the traffic enforcement camera car does everything in their power to ensure they obey the traffic laws, after all, their job is probably on the line if they get caught breaking them. But not everyone is perfect, and honest mistakes happen. The majority of people are in support of speed enforcement, I think it is an essential part of policing the roads, but it is questionable tactics by the Road Safety Partnership in order to drive revenue that irritates most. £110 to attend a driver awareness course run by a couple of retired police officers, they must be making money hand over fist. Businesses are expected to disclose their profits, so why is this allowed to be hidden from the public? We see no evidence of the revenue generated by these road safety vans being put back into the road system to make things safer for motorists. The junction at limberlost desperately needs widening, the duel carriageway from safety roundabout towards Wareham needs the drainage fixed (standing water and black ice cause a lot of accidents on that road every year) and street lighting. If safety is the primary concern here, why do they not send the police officers into 6th Form colleges and University’s, giving free 2 hour lectures on the dangers on the road? After all we are always told that young people are at more risk of having a serious accident. They could offer little road safety courses for primary/middle school children. Crossing the road, wearing seatbelts and such like. The fact is, the Dorset Road Safety Partnership is operated like a profitable business, under the cloak of being almost charitable. It is disgusting. TheDerv
  • Score: 41

9:06am Wed 5 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

billy bumble wrote:
The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law
You mean not supposed to be. The majority of them clearly think they are!
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law[/p][/quote]You mean not supposed to be. The majority of them clearly think they are! speedy231278
  • Score: 8

9:12am Wed 5 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

If one breaks down in their car (that's the car breaking down, not the occupant) and has to stop on the hard shoulder, then the advice from the Police, and every motoring organisation is to GET OUT of the car and retreat a SAFE DISTANCE from it, in case someone has an accident/car failure and a vehicle ends up colliding with yours. What would Dorset Police's reaction be if someone jost control of their car by panic braking when seeing this van, and was then in collision with it, injuring or killing the occupant? Part way around a corner is simply a highly irresponsible place to put one of these vans so close to the road, but we all know it's because it means the motorist will have less chance to spot it, maximising revenue. I seem to recall there's a minimum distance a mobile greed camera must be visible for, and I wonder if this corner actually allows that? Also, does being on a corner possibly affect the accuracy of the speed reading as opposed to when the vehicle is travelling directly towards the camera?
If one breaks down in their car (that's the car breaking down, not the occupant) and has to stop on the hard shoulder, then the advice from the Police, and every motoring organisation is to GET OUT of the car and retreat a SAFE DISTANCE from it, in case someone has an accident/car failure and a vehicle ends up colliding with yours. What would Dorset Police's reaction be if someone jost control of their car by panic braking when seeing this van, and was then in collision with it, injuring or killing the occupant? Part way around a corner is simply a highly irresponsible place to put one of these vans so close to the road, but we all know it's because it means the motorist will have less chance to spot it, maximising revenue. I seem to recall there's a minimum distance a mobile greed camera must be visible for, and I wonder if this corner actually allows that? Also, does being on a corner possibly affect the accuracy of the speed reading as opposed to when the vehicle is travelling directly towards the camera? speedy231278
  • Score: 19

9:16am Wed 5 Mar 14

adspacebroker says...

Mr Belchamber you produce very weak arguments I am afraid. The possibility of a vehicle colliding with camera van exists no matter where it is parked. The BIG point that you are missing with the camera van being parked on the Dorset Way bridge is that the operator kindly gives drivers an opportunity to slow down by placing a POLICE SLOW sign several hundred metres prior to it's location. As all respectful drivers would know, these temporary POLICE signs are normally used to indicate a recent or current hazard that suggests a driver should react to i.e. Slow Down. So when I approached the sign doing 50mph even though I hadnt seen the camera van at that moment, I decreased my speed to allow me to respond to any hazard. More importantly the mobile cameras are there for a good reason and we have all seen idiots belting down the Dorset Way at 70mph+ passing memorials to the recent dead on that road. My only disappointment is that we do not have more covert Roads Policing vehicles around to deal with the menace of society going around killing innocent people.
Mr Belchamber you produce very weak arguments I am afraid. The possibility of a vehicle colliding with camera van exists no matter where it is parked. The BIG point that you are missing with the camera van being parked on the Dorset Way bridge is that the operator kindly gives drivers an opportunity to slow down by placing a POLICE SLOW sign several hundred metres prior to it's location. As all respectful drivers would know, these temporary POLICE signs are normally used to indicate a recent or current hazard that suggests a driver should react to i.e. Slow Down. So when I approached the sign doing 50mph even though I hadnt seen the camera van at that moment, I decreased my speed to allow me to respond to any hazard. More importantly the mobile cameras are there for a good reason and we have all seen idiots belting down the Dorset Way at 70mph+ passing memorials to the recent dead on that road. My only disappointment is that we do not have more covert Roads Policing vehicles around to deal with the menace of society going around killing innocent people. adspacebroker
  • Score: -27

9:18am Wed 5 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money.
Exactly.
If our roads are to be made safer I fail to see how prevention is gained by sending a speeding ticket through the post to a driver a couple of weeks after he/she was caught speeding.
I also fail to see how hiding a speed enforcement van on a bend or on the other side of a hill does not cause more danger on the road, surely to prevent speeders it would be prudent to park these vans where they could be clearly seen from a distance, but of course that would deprive them of the revenue raised by not actually preventing anything at the time it took place.
At the inquest of the motorcyclist killed on the spur road a few years ago it was determined by Bournemouth Coroner Sheriff Payne that the biker lost control after braking in response to the presence of a safety camera van at the side of the road.
Yes he may have been speeding but the camera van caused his death by its positioning, had the van not been there the biker may well have completed his journey, albeit by breaking the law, but he would have been alive today and with his family.
So lets have some perspective about speed enforcement, don't hide vans on dangerous bends in the pursuit of revenue which cause motorists to break hard, whether they are speeding or not, enforce the law at the time it is broken, not two weeks later.
Also a speeding driver braking hard could lose control and slam into other vehicles who are completely innocent of any motoring offences, no they shouldn't be speeding but you cant justify innocent injuries or deaths by using the excuse of upholding the law.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money.[/p][/quote]Exactly. If our roads are to be made safer I fail to see how prevention is gained by sending a speeding ticket through the post to a driver a couple of weeks after he/she was caught speeding. I also fail to see how hiding a speed enforcement van on a bend or on the other side of a hill does not cause more danger on the road, surely to prevent speeders it would be prudent to park these vans where they could be clearly seen from a distance, but of course that would deprive them of the revenue raised by not actually preventing anything at the time it took place. At the inquest of the motorcyclist killed on the spur road a few years ago it was determined by Bournemouth Coroner Sheriff Payne that the biker lost control after braking in response to the presence of a safety camera van at the side of the road. Yes he may have been speeding but the camera van caused his death by its positioning, had the van not been there the biker may well have completed his journey, albeit by breaking the law, but he would have been alive today and with his family. So lets have some perspective about speed enforcement, don't hide vans on dangerous bends in the pursuit of revenue which cause motorists to break hard, whether they are speeding or not, enforce the law at the time it is broken, not two weeks later. Also a speeding driver braking hard could lose control and slam into other vehicles who are completely innocent of any motoring offences, no they shouldn't be speeding but you cant justify innocent injuries or deaths by using the excuse of upholding the law. Hessenford
  • Score: 32

9:21am Wed 5 Mar 14

anigel says...

They will never let a little thing like safety stand in the way of making money. Heck there are motorists out there, we must make our quota of fines.
They will never let a little thing like safety stand in the way of making money. Heck there are motorists out there, we must make our quota of fines. anigel
  • Score: 21

9:34am Wed 5 Mar 14

martaaay2 says...

They've got 50 seats to fill on each course they run, they obviously weren't filling them up!

Well done to the groups involved for obtaining the picture evidence and highlighting it to the media, not that I believe it will change their behavior.

I rarely see these anyway, not much money to be made from the 40mph train of traffic to work and back each day.
They've got 50 seats to fill on each course they run, they obviously weren't filling them up! Well done to the groups involved for obtaining the picture evidence and highlighting it to the media, not that I believe it will change their behavior. I rarely see these anyway, not much money to be made from the 40mph train of traffic to work and back each day. martaaay2
  • Score: 21

9:35am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

adspacebroker wrote:
Mr Belchamber you produce very weak arguments I am afraid. The possibility of a vehicle colliding with camera van exists no matter where it is parked. The BIG point that you are missing with the camera van being parked on the Dorset Way bridge is that the operator kindly gives drivers an opportunity to slow down by placing a POLICE SLOW sign several hundred metres prior to it's location. As all respectful drivers would know, these temporary POLICE signs are normally used to indicate a recent or current hazard that suggests a driver should react to i.e. Slow Down. So when I approached the sign doing 50mph even though I hadnt seen the camera van at that moment, I decreased my speed to allow me to respond to any hazard. More importantly the mobile cameras are there for a good reason and we have all seen idiots belting down the Dorset Way at 70mph+ passing memorials to the recent dead on that road. My only disappointment is that we do not have more covert Roads Policing vehicles around to deal with the menace of society going around killing innocent people.
"The possibility of a vehicle colliding with camera van exists no matter where it is parked" I simply want the police to demonstrate that they have properly accounted for the risks and that the resulting safety effect is positive. They have failed to do this, and frequently park in the sliproad which is insane. I have NEVER seen "a POLICE SLOW sign several hundred metres prior to it's location." Perhaps the limit should have been enforced properly at 70, it was not as it would not have made enough money. Speeding is only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents, when other factors may include drunk driving, vehicle theft, etc. where limits and vans will do nothing. It is obvious that the safety potential of these operations is vanishingly small and highly unlikely to outweigh the risks.

I simply want policing, covert or otherwise, to have public safety as the primary concern, not making money.
[quote][p][bold]adspacebroker[/bold] wrote: Mr Belchamber you produce very weak arguments I am afraid. The possibility of a vehicle colliding with camera van exists no matter where it is parked. The BIG point that you are missing with the camera van being parked on the Dorset Way bridge is that the operator kindly gives drivers an opportunity to slow down by placing a POLICE SLOW sign several hundred metres prior to it's location. As all respectful drivers would know, these temporary POLICE signs are normally used to indicate a recent or current hazard that suggests a driver should react to i.e. Slow Down. So when I approached the sign doing 50mph even though I hadnt seen the camera van at that moment, I decreased my speed to allow me to respond to any hazard. More importantly the mobile cameras are there for a good reason and we have all seen idiots belting down the Dorset Way at 70mph+ passing memorials to the recent dead on that road. My only disappointment is that we do not have more covert Roads Policing vehicles around to deal with the menace of society going around killing innocent people.[/p][/quote]"The possibility of a vehicle colliding with camera van exists no matter where it is parked" I simply want the police to demonstrate that they have properly accounted for the risks and that the resulting safety effect is positive. They have failed to do this, and frequently park in the sliproad which is insane. I have NEVER seen "a POLICE SLOW sign several hundred metres prior to it's location." Perhaps the limit should have been enforced properly at 70, it was not as it would not have made enough money. Speeding is only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents, when other factors may include drunk driving, vehicle theft, etc. where limits and vans will do nothing. It is obvious that the safety potential of these operations is vanishingly small and highly unlikely to outweigh the risks. I simply want policing, covert or otherwise, to have public safety as the primary concern, not making money. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 30

9:41am Wed 5 Mar 14

kangaroo_joey says...

I hope a lorry ploughs straight into it personally, they are just one big cash cow lining the fat cats pockets, if the fines were spent on improving the police force then fair enough but they are not
I hope a lorry ploughs straight into it personally, they are just one big cash cow lining the fat cats pockets, if the fines were spent on improving the police force then fair enough but they are not kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 17

9:45am Wed 5 Mar 14

miltonarcher says...

Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy. miltonarcher
  • Score: -30

9:48am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 21

9:50am Wed 5 Mar 14

vitodaz says...

I have got to ask this one question. Clearways? Does this not mean to everyone that they cannot stop on a clearway hence the idea of them. I understand people breaking down on them, but to actually be stopped in a high catchment area for people speeding surely is not a good enough excuse. I think it's ridiculous they have even reduced the limit to 50mph in the first place as it seems cos stupid little boy racers can't handle their cars properly and are in excess of 70mph we all get penilised. Ian said something about a hard shoulder, clearly being raised this isn't really a hard shoulder, so the clearway regulations should be enforced.
I have got to ask this one question. Clearways? Does this not mean to everyone that they cannot stop on a clearway hence the idea of them. I understand people breaking down on them, but to actually be stopped in a high catchment area for people speeding surely is not a good enough excuse. I think it's ridiculous they have even reduced the limit to 50mph in the first place as it seems cos stupid little boy racers can't handle their cars properly and are in excess of 70mph we all get penilised. Ian said something about a hard shoulder, clearly being raised this isn't really a hard shoulder, so the clearway regulations should be enforced. vitodaz
  • Score: 16

9:52am Wed 5 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution. Hessenford
  • Score: 19

10:02am Wed 5 Mar 14

miltonarcher says...

Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists. miltonarcher
  • Score: -23

10:06am Wed 5 Mar 14

SPIRITCATCHER says...

££££££££££
££££££££££
£££££££££ This is what is all about...always has been...never will change...
££££££££££ ££££££££££ £££££££££ This is what is all about...always has been...never will change... SPIRITCATCHER
  • Score: 36

10:14am Wed 5 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
I suggest you read the coroners report again, admittedly the biker was speeding but it was the presence of the camera van which caused him to brake hard, would he have braked so hard if a police car had come up behind him, I don't think so, although excessive speeders are a menace these hidden camera vans cause people to brake hard whether they are speeding or not which leads to some horrific consequences in the pursuit of revenue.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]I suggest you read the coroners report again, admittedly the biker was speeding but it was the presence of the camera van which caused him to brake hard, would he have braked so hard if a police car had come up behind him, I don't think so, although excessive speeders are a menace these hidden camera vans cause people to brake hard whether they are speeding or not which leads to some horrific consequences in the pursuit of revenue. Hessenford
  • Score: 22

10:16am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
I believe the speed was about 78 in a 50 if it makes any difference (where as in the Dorset Way situation, the limit had been reduced far below the average speed and far below the natural safe speed for the road). There are very few road deaths that have one one factor. In this case, his speed was a factor, so was the camera. I would prefer road safety policing to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents.

What would you say to the families of the 10 times as many killed with simple driver error as a factor, when nothing is done about it because it's more difficult to make money out if it?
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]I believe the speed was about 78 in a 50 if it makes any difference (where as in the Dorset Way situation, the limit had been reduced far below the average speed and far below the natural safe speed for the road). There are very few road deaths that have one one factor. In this case, his speed was a factor, so was the camera. I would prefer road safety policing to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents. What would you say to the families of the 10 times as many killed with simple driver error as a factor, when nothing is done about it because it's more difficult to make money out if it? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 12

10:19am Wed 5 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either. speedy231278
  • Score: 15

10:20am Wed 5 Mar 14

megalanca says...

Dorset safety camera partnership takes it again to the new level, totally unacceptable. Camera van on the hard shoulder, or facing the other way on the end of slip road, it's blatantly creating risks for other road users, especially on dual carriageway with a lowest available 50 mph limit. The partnership has nothing to do with safety, it's the revenue they are after.
Dorset safety camera partnership takes it again to the new level, totally unacceptable. Camera van on the hard shoulder, or facing the other way on the end of slip road, it's blatantly creating risks for other road users, especially on dual carriageway with a lowest available 50 mph limit. The partnership has nothing to do with safety, it's the revenue they are after. megalanca
  • Score: 18

10:22am Wed 5 Mar 14

PokesdownMark says...

hooplaa wrote:
I recently attended a driver awareness programme and was told most of the fatal and serious injury accidents occur in town centres and built up areas. These vans can only been seen after a corner on a dual carriageway or main A road to make maximum fine revenue. Never see the van parked in a town centre. I wonder why...
Well said.

The very first thing I was told on my driver awareness course was that speed was rarely a causal factor in collisions. It was driving too close and failing to properly make and act on observations.

This was particularly annoying for me. I had been measured at 57mph heading north from Cooper Dean. I was in lane 2 and lane 1 was packed with cars far too close. I had very gingerly accelerated to be adjacent to a gap (diamond formation) and provide space to lane 1 drivers. I was 10 seconds away from the 70mph limit. I had actually seen the speed van on the southbound side and had passed it at 50mph on cruise control. But its laser detector was positioned specifically to catch drivers heading north immediately before the 70mph sign. The diamond pattern of defensive driving was highly praised on the awareness course as well. I was absolutely fizzing!!!!

To me this is very clearly about raising revenue. There is no action against tail-gating drivers which is known to a far more significant risk factor. Are there any politicians locally with the brains and guts to make a stand for true road safety and campaign for an effective police presence on our roads with the clear intention of pulling over the bad drivers we all see every day?
[quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: I recently attended a driver awareness programme and was told most of the fatal and serious injury accidents occur in town centres and built up areas. These vans can only been seen after a corner on a dual carriageway or main A road to make maximum fine revenue. Never see the van parked in a town centre. I wonder why...[/p][/quote]Well said. The very first thing I was told on my driver awareness course was that speed was rarely a causal factor in collisions. It was driving too close and failing to properly make and act on observations. This was particularly annoying for me. I had been measured at 57mph heading north from Cooper Dean. I was in lane 2 and lane 1 was packed with cars far too close. I had very gingerly accelerated to be adjacent to a gap (diamond formation) and provide space to lane 1 drivers. I was 10 seconds away from the 70mph limit. I had actually seen the speed van on the southbound side and had passed it at 50mph on cruise control. But its laser detector was positioned specifically to catch drivers heading north immediately before the 70mph sign. The diamond pattern of defensive driving was highly praised on the awareness course as well. I was absolutely fizzing!!!! To me this is very clearly about raising revenue. There is no action against tail-gating drivers which is known to a far more significant risk factor. Are there any politicians locally with the brains and guts to make a stand for true road safety and campaign for an effective police presence on our roads with the clear intention of pulling over the bad drivers we all see every day? PokesdownMark
  • Score: 34

10:32am Wed 5 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
I believe the speed was about 78 in a 50 if it makes any difference (where as in the Dorset Way situation, the limit had been reduced far below the average speed and far below the natural safe speed for the road). There are very few road deaths that have one one factor. In this case, his speed was a factor, so was the camera. I would prefer road safety policing to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents.

What would you say to the families of the 10 times as many killed with simple driver error as a factor, when nothing is done about it because it's more difficult to make money out if it?
So if the speed limit wasn't reduced at this point some years ago he would have only been 8mph over the limit which on a motorway is I believed ignored by the police, makes his death seem even more worth while doesn't it just to raise in more revenue.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]I believe the speed was about 78 in a 50 if it makes any difference (where as in the Dorset Way situation, the limit had been reduced far below the average speed and far below the natural safe speed for the road). There are very few road deaths that have one one factor. In this case, his speed was a factor, so was the camera. I would prefer road safety policing to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents. What would you say to the families of the 10 times as many killed with simple driver error as a factor, when nothing is done about it because it's more difficult to make money out if it?[/p][/quote]So if the speed limit wasn't reduced at this point some years ago he would have only been 8mph over the limit which on a motorway is I believed ignored by the police, makes his death seem even more worth while doesn't it just to raise in more revenue. Hessenford
  • Score: 14

10:35am Wed 5 Mar 14

suzigirl says...

N Smith wrote:
I would also like to point out ,what have the police done to stop the jap racing club meeting at the dfs car park and racing around the streets to the early hours of the morning? Absolutley nothing
I can hear the Jap racing club outings from my home! I am a bit on the fence regarding this as I suppose it is late at night and the roads are quiet but they do make a lot of noise!
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: I would also like to point out ,what have the police done to stop the jap racing club meeting at the dfs car park and racing around the streets to the early hours of the morning? Absolutley nothing[/p][/quote]I can hear the Jap racing club outings from my home! I am a bit on the fence regarding this as I suppose it is late at night and the roads are quiet but they do make a lot of noise! suzigirl
  • Score: 5

10:35am Wed 5 Mar 14

miltonarcher says...

speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple. miltonarcher
  • Score: -12

10:37am Wed 5 Mar 14

suzigirl says...

hooplaa wrote:
I recently attended a driver awareness programme and was told most of the fatal and serious injury accidents occur in town centres and built up areas. These vans can only been seen after a corner on a dual carriageway or main A road to make maximum fine revenue. Never see the van parked in a town centre. I wonder why...
Were you caught speeding then?
[quote][p][bold]hooplaa[/bold] wrote: I recently attended a driver awareness programme and was told most of the fatal and serious injury accidents occur in town centres and built up areas. These vans can only been seen after a corner on a dual carriageway or main A road to make maximum fine revenue. Never see the van parked in a town centre. I wonder why...[/p][/quote]Were you caught speeding then? suzigirl
  • Score: -13

10:39am Wed 5 Mar 14

Hessenford says...

miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
Cobblers, drivers under or on the speed limit brake hard when one of these vans suddenly come into view, if they were interested in stopping speeding the vans would be positioned so that they were plainly seen from great distances, not hiding like a weasel out of sight.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]Cobblers, drivers under or on the speed limit brake hard when one of these vans suddenly come into view, if they were interested in stopping speeding the vans would be positioned so that they were plainly seen from great distances, not hiding like a weasel out of sight. Hessenford
  • Score: 16

10:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

Chris the plumber says...

I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others..
I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others.. Chris the plumber
  • Score: -26

10:41am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit.

So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit. So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 20

10:47am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others..
I had 3 about 10 years ago, not a big deal. Yes if we had no speeding we would have no speed cameras. I think you will find that a proper safety driven activity requires a slightly better justification than this. That's all I've been asking for. 78 on a proper dual carriageway just on the edge of a 70 limit and where the 50 limit has been set 20% below even average speeds is not an "obscene" speed, don't be ridiculous. A witness said he was riding sensibly.
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others..[/p][/quote]I had 3 about 10 years ago, not a big deal. Yes if we had no speeding we would have no speed cameras. I think you will find that a proper safety driven activity requires a slightly better justification than this. That's all I've been asking for. 78 on a proper dual carriageway just on the edge of a 70 limit and where the 50 limit has been set 20% below even average speeds is not an "obscene" speed, don't be ridiculous. A witness said he was riding sensibly. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 14

10:48am Wed 5 Mar 14

MrEdge says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight
You've hit the nail on the head there though. People will speed on this road even if there is a van there once a month. Putting a speed van here doesn't actually make anyone drive slower, it just punished a small handful who don't.

Great for making money, but does it actually make the road any safer? No. In fact people who are speeding slamming on their breaks and this thing parked in that awful place probably make the road MORE dangerous on the days it's there.

Money should instead be spent on making the roads better for the ACTUAL use (70ish MPH) as opposed to a use made up by someone in a meeting room.

"We didn't fix this awful blind slip road that is half the length it needs to be because we decided that this road is a 50mph road" doesn't make anything safer for anyone.

Nice little earner though.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]If people where able to comply with the speed limit there would be no need for these vans to exist ,yes I agree with this story this van in this instance was dangerously positioned ,but given the amount of vehicles that overtake me on the dorset way in excess of the speed limit it's people's inability comply with the speed limit that is in question not there eyesight[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head there though. People will speed on this road even if there is a van there once a month. Putting a speed van here doesn't actually make anyone drive slower, it just punished a small handful who don't. Great for making money, but does it actually make the road any safer? No. In fact people who are speeding slamming on their breaks and this thing parked in that awful place probably make the road MORE dangerous on the days it's there. Money should instead be spent on making the roads better for the ACTUAL use (70ish MPH) as opposed to a use made up by someone in a meeting room. "We didn't fix this awful blind slip road that is half the length it needs to be because we decided that this road is a 50mph road" doesn't make anything safer for anyone. Nice little earner though. MrEdge
  • Score: 23

11:11am Wed 5 Mar 14

nosuchluck54 says...

Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you
Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you nosuchluck54
  • Score: -20

11:24am Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you
Any particular points you disagree with, and can you explain why?
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you[/p][/quote]Any particular points you disagree with, and can you explain why? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 10

11:31am Wed 5 Mar 14

rayc says...

Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income.
If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.
Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction. rayc
  • Score: 13

11:39am Wed 5 Mar 14

nosuchluck54 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
nosuchluck54 wrote:
Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you
Any particular points you disagree with, and can you explain why?
Apologies I meant pa-trolls
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you[/p][/quote]Any particular points you disagree with, and can you explain why?[/p][/quote]Apologies I meant pa-trolls nosuchluck54
  • Score: -9

11:41am Wed 5 Mar 14

kangaroo_joey says...

miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
So can you hand on heart tell me you have never gone 1mph over the speed limit? Or are you one the dangerous drivers that drives below the limit? Slow drivers cause as many accidents as fast ones
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]So can you hand on heart tell me you have never gone 1mph over the speed limit? Or are you one the dangerous drivers that drives below the limit? Slow drivers cause as many accidents as fast ones kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 12

11:43am Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.
Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about...

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

At least get your facts right if you are going to moan.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.[/p][/quote]Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about... http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/STATS/Web% 20Casualties%205yrs% 202012.pdf At least get your facts right if you are going to moan. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

11:48am Wed 5 Mar 14

djd says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit.

So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.
No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today.
The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings.
Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents.
The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit. So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.[/p][/quote]No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today. The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings. Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents. The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences. djd
  • Score: -11

11:50am Wed 5 Mar 14

rayc says...

tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.
Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about...

http://www.dorsetroa

dsafe.org.uk/images/

Documents/STATS/Web%

20Casualties%205yrs%

202012.pdf

At least get your facts right if you are going to moan.
This is what Dorset Police said in the Echo on 30th March 2011 regarding the cut of a third in Traffic officer numbers "Dorset Police say fatal and serious injury accidents fell to an all-time low of 346 in 2010. And the number of people who lost their lives on the county’s roads dropped from 21 in 2009 to 10 in 2010. Chief Superintendent Martin Hiles said: “The demand isn’t at the same level as it was a few years ago. Operation No Excuse and the awareness of it is now really huge.”
Of course if you are saying that Dorset Police figures cannot be trusted then so be it but I would of thought that claiming a figure of 50% less than what you are stating is disingenuous.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.[/p][/quote]Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about... http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/STATS/Web% 20Casualties%205yrs% 202012.pdf At least get your facts right if you are going to moan.[/p][/quote]This is what Dorset Police said in the Echo on 30th March 2011 regarding the cut of a third in Traffic officer numbers "Dorset Police say fatal and serious injury accidents fell to an all-time low of 346 in 2010. And the number of people who lost their lives on the county’s roads dropped from 21 in 2009 to 10 in 2010. Chief Superintendent Martin Hiles said: “The demand isn’t at the same level as it was a few years ago. Operation No Excuse and the awareness of it is now really huge.” Of course if you are saying that Dorset Police figures cannot be trusted then so be it but I would of thought that claiming a figure of 50% less than what you are stating is disingenuous. rayc
  • Score: 8

11:53am Wed 5 Mar 14

SensibleChap says...

I don't understand the purpose of mobile speed camera vans. Are they used to prevent accidents at times when they are operational or are they there to raise revenue? Or both?

I think if Dorest Police were honest about this and admitted that their main pupose is to target drivers for revenue generation then people would accept them for what thye are - an irritation. Instead we are misled under the guise of 'road safety' which nobody believes and therefore creates a sense of resentment.

The other challenge Dorset Police face is that speeding doesn't equal certain death. Most people who speed don't crash and speed whilst rarely the cause of an accident does have the ability to make an accident worse. What i'm saying is that speed doesn't materially increase the risk of a crash but could make a crash worse.

Speeding is easy to measure, its arbitrary, you either are or are not breaking the limit and therefore its easy to fine people.

I believe that people who drive below the speed limit (assuming road conditions are good) present more of a risk as do people who do not understand lane discipline. Unfortunately this group is generally people >40 who haven'k kept up to date with how the roads work and instead live in blissful ignorancde believing their driving is good.
I don't understand the purpose of mobile speed camera vans. Are they used to prevent accidents at times when they are operational or are they there to raise revenue? Or both? I think if Dorest Police were honest about this and admitted that their main pupose is to target drivers for revenue generation then people would accept them for what thye are - an irritation. Instead we are misled under the guise of 'road safety' which nobody believes and therefore creates a sense of resentment. The other challenge Dorset Police face is that speeding doesn't equal certain death. Most people who speed don't crash and speed whilst rarely the cause of an accident does have the ability to make an accident worse. What i'm saying is that speed doesn't materially increase the risk of a crash but could make a crash worse. Speeding is easy to measure, its arbitrary, you either are or are not breaking the limit and therefore its easy to fine people. I believe that people who drive below the speed limit (assuming road conditions are good) present more of a risk as do people who do not understand lane discipline. Unfortunately this group is generally people >40 who haven'k kept up to date with how the roads work and instead live in blissful ignorancde believing their driving is good. SensibleChap
  • Score: 24

11:54am Wed 5 Mar 14

hughgeezafook says...

This has nothing to do with speed. If a car, lorry, motorbike had a blow out at 30mph and hit it, there would be a nasty accident. If it wasnt they would grind to a stop along the barrier. So a van parked there is dangerous full stop. If you broke down and left your car at that spot, how long before the police would get it removed? quickly i should imagine. You can not beat the system so no point reporting it as it will be there again soon anyway. Common sense will not prevail when there is money to be made for the police force. If anyone doesn't like my comments feel free to abuse me and put your word across as i wont be reading them. Have a nice day
This has nothing to do with speed. If a car, lorry, motorbike had a blow out at 30mph and hit it, there would be a nasty accident. If it wasnt they would grind to a stop along the barrier. So a van parked there is dangerous full stop. If you broke down and left your car at that spot, how long before the police would get it removed? quickly i should imagine. You can not beat the system so no point reporting it as it will be there again soon anyway. Common sense will not prevail when there is money to be made for the police force. If anyone doesn't like my comments feel free to abuse me and put your word across as i wont be reading them. Have a nice day hughgeezafook
  • Score: 19

11:58am Wed 5 Mar 14

rayc says...

tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.
Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about...

http://www.dorsetroa

dsafe.org.uk/images/

Documents/STATS/Web%

20Casualties%205yrs%

202012.pdf

At least get your facts right if you are going to moan.
In addition the Echo reported in an article concerning the incident with the motorcyclist spur road incident "A Dorset Road Safe spokesman said: “Safety cameras are used as part of an overall road safety strategy.
“As a result, road fatalities have fallen from 52 in 2002/2003 to 18 in 2009/2010.”
I am quoting the figure of 10 from 2010 what years are you quoting for 18?
If we take the total for the years 2012/2013 then we are roughly back to the 2002/2003 total. What a waste of a decade of opportunity by the enforcement of the easily detected over the dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.[/p][/quote]Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about... http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/STATS/Web% 20Casualties%205yrs% 202012.pdf At least get your facts right if you are going to moan.[/p][/quote]In addition the Echo reported in an article concerning the incident with the motorcyclist spur road incident "A Dorset Road Safe spokesman said: “Safety cameras are used as part of an overall road safety strategy. “As a result, road fatalities have fallen from 52 in 2002/2003 to 18 in 2009/2010.” I am quoting the figure of 10 from 2010 what years are you quoting for 18? If we take the total for the years 2012/2013 then we are roughly back to the 2002/2003 total. What a waste of a decade of opportunity by the enforcement of the easily detected over the dangerous. rayc
  • Score: 9

12:02pm Wed 5 Mar 14

moorite says...

Parking a speed camera van in that location next to a crash barrier,just parked off the main dual carriageway and on a sweeping bend as printed is dangerous regardless of whether you agree or disagree about the speed camera vans,im sure a more suitable location along that road could of been found.
Parking a speed camera van in that location next to a crash barrier,just parked off the main dual carriageway and on a sweeping bend as printed is dangerous regardless of whether you agree or disagree about the speed camera vans,im sure a more suitable location along that road could of been found. moorite
  • Score: 20

12:11pm Wed 5 Mar 14

miltonarcher says...

kangaroo_joey wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
So can you hand on heart tell me you have never gone 1mph over the speed limit? Or are you one the dangerous drivers that drives below the limit? Slow drivers cause as many accidents as fast ones
Where is your evidence, oops can't find it, thought so. Bit of advice, stop posting ill informed rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]kangaroo_joey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]So can you hand on heart tell me you have never gone 1mph over the speed limit? Or are you one the dangerous drivers that drives below the limit? Slow drivers cause as many accidents as fast ones[/p][/quote]Where is your evidence, oops can't find it, thought so. Bit of advice, stop posting ill informed rubbish. miltonarcher
  • Score: -8

12:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

epswat says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you
What an excellent post, well worth the effort it must have taken to type it. As another poster said, please let us know of any particular points you disagree with, rather than just trolling yourself.

I see no anti Police sentiment here, just a lot of frustrated people who are fed up with being ripped off under the guise of Road Safety.
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: Good to see the anti police trolls out in force,thought we had lost you[/p][/quote]What an excellent post, well worth the effort it must have taken to type it. As another poster said, please let us know of any particular points you disagree with, rather than just trolling yourself. I see no anti Police sentiment here, just a lot of frustrated people who are fed up with being ripped off under the guise of Road Safety. epswat
  • Score: 21

12:21pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

djd wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit.

So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.
No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today.
The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings.
Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents.
The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.
People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it?

This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators.
[quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit. So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.[/p][/quote]No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today. The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings. Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents. The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.[/p][/quote]People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it? This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 17

12:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

mcwuzzy says...

Directly beneath this van, the Fleetsbridge Roundabout, is plagued with drivers jumping red lights. The frustration of a completely unnecessary and badly timed system is responsible. I have to go round there at least four times every day and on virtually every transit I will see vehicles jumping a set of red lights. Despite repeated complaints I have yet to see any enforcement.
Why? Because it is too much work compared to sitting in a van clocking up the numbers. It's simply all about money and the easiest way of raising it. It is nothing to do with safety and to believe it is, is to fool yourself.
Directly beneath this van, the Fleetsbridge Roundabout, is plagued with drivers jumping red lights. The frustration of a completely unnecessary and badly timed system is responsible. I have to go round there at least four times every day and on virtually every transit I will see vehicles jumping a set of red lights. Despite repeated complaints I have yet to see any enforcement. Why? Because it is too much work compared to sitting in a van clocking up the numbers. It's simply all about money and the easiest way of raising it. It is nothing to do with safety and to believe it is, is to fool yourself. mcwuzzy
  • Score: 20

12:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

suzigirl says...

Chris the plumber wrote:
I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others..
I hardly think the speed Mr Tim Rowsell was going was "obscene" and I am sure his family appreciate your comments! Is your plumbing van a Micra by any chance?
[quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others..[/p][/quote]I hardly think the speed Mr Tim Rowsell was going was "obscene" and I am sure his family appreciate your comments! Is your plumbing van a Micra by any chance? suzigirl
  • Score: 8

12:31pm Wed 5 Mar 14

muscliffman says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
I have always questioned the positioning of these vans where are they found during rush hours/school runs ? On dual carriageways where they can make maximum fines from people rushing to get to work ,rather see them positioned outside of schools to catch the view idiots that speed in those areas at that time
I agree with your first points. But seriously what good is it positioning a speed van outside of most urban schools - because if you have ever been near one during school run times you will notice it is near impossible to pass by, let alone achieve speeds near even 10mph, the 'idiot' you refer to would not have the chance to speed.

Points of course also totally missed by opportunistic local Councillor's only too keen to spend our public money on completely pointless traffic calming schemes near schools with perfect past road safety records. These obstructions and rules then simply inconvenience every road user all day, every day for absolutely no useful reason - but it does get the Councillor/s picture in the press!

Perhaps the best place for these speed vans would be on some of the well known back street rat runs, certainly not outside schools sitting in slow moving car parks.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: I have always questioned the positioning of these vans where are they found during rush hours/school runs ? On dual carriageways where they can make maximum fines from people rushing to get to work ,rather see them positioned outside of schools to catch the view idiots that speed in those areas at that time[/p][/quote]I agree with your first points. But seriously what good is it positioning a speed van outside of most urban schools - because if you have ever been near one during school run times you will notice it is near impossible to pass by, let alone achieve speeds near even 10mph, the 'idiot' you refer to would not have the chance to speed. Points of course also totally missed by opportunistic local Councillor's only too keen to spend our public money on completely pointless traffic calming schemes near schools with perfect past road safety records. These obstructions and rules then simply inconvenience every road user all day, every day for absolutely no useful reason - but it does get the Councillor/s picture in the press! Perhaps the best place for these speed vans would be on some of the well known back street rat runs, certainly not outside schools sitting in slow moving car parks. muscliffman
  • Score: 11

12:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote: Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.
Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about... http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/STATS/Web% 20Casualties%205yrs% 202012.pdf At least get your facts right if you are going to moan.
In addition the Echo reported in an article concerning the incident with the motorcyclist spur road incident "A Dorset Road Safe spokesman said: “Safety cameras are used as part of an overall road safety strategy. “As a result, road fatalities have fallen from 52 in 2002/2003 to 18 in 2009/2010.” I am quoting the figure of 10 from 2010 what years are you quoting for 18? If we take the total for the years 2012/2013 then we are roughly back to the 2002/2003 total. What a waste of a decade of opportunity by the enforcement of the easily detected over the dangerous.
I'm not quoting anything, I'm just directing you to the figures on the website which show 18 fatals for calendar year 2010, not 10 as you keep quoting. These numbers can easily be corroborated by looking at the Deprtment for Transport figures. I believe these over anything published in the Echo, they can make mistakes and probably do all the time.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: Whilst this goes on the fatalities from Dorset road incidents continues to climb annually, there were 29 last year compared to 10 in 2010. The camera enforcement on the safest roads has been a failure. It does though keep the Driver Awareness Course attendance up with the Police keeping the surplus income. If catching drivers exceeding speed limits on roads that have arbitrary low speed limits on them then so be it but don't try to justify it with casualty or fatality reduction.[/p][/quote]Wrong...there were 18 in 2010, not that this is anything to cheer about... http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/STATS/Web% 20Casualties%205yrs% 202012.pdf At least get your facts right if you are going to moan.[/p][/quote]In addition the Echo reported in an article concerning the incident with the motorcyclist spur road incident "A Dorset Road Safe spokesman said: “Safety cameras are used as part of an overall road safety strategy. “As a result, road fatalities have fallen from 52 in 2002/2003 to 18 in 2009/2010.” I am quoting the figure of 10 from 2010 what years are you quoting for 18? If we take the total for the years 2012/2013 then we are roughly back to the 2002/2003 total. What a waste of a decade of opportunity by the enforcement of the easily detected over the dangerous.[/p][/quote]I'm not quoting anything, I'm just directing you to the figures on the website which show 18 fatals for calendar year 2010, not 10 as you keep quoting. These numbers can easily be corroborated by looking at the Deprtment for Transport figures. I believe these over anything published in the Echo, they can make mistakes and probably do all the time. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

12:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
djd wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit. So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.
No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today. The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings. Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents. The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.
People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it? This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators.
I'm sorry but this all just smacks of self-publicity for you and your website and the Echo should be ashamed of themselves for giving you the "air time".

As I said in my first post, where do the Echo get the idea that you represent a 'group' of campaigners (if that is the correct plural) because you are very much a one man band with a few speed-apologist followers who track out the same old lame comments.

You keep harking back to the spur road incident but it could just have easily been a car pulling out into the fast lane that caused the motorbike to brake suddenly.

If it was a real problem the mobile vans would be casuing accidents every 5 minutes and there would be chaos on the roads every time they set up somewhere.

You are just using this as an excuse to attack something you don't like because you have obviously gone off the publicity radar recently and want to be able to dictate the agenda again.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit. So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.[/p][/quote]No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today. The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings. Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents. The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.[/p][/quote]People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it? This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but this all just smacks of self-publicity for you and your website and the Echo should be ashamed of themselves for giving you the "air time". As I said in my first post, where do the Echo get the idea that you represent a 'group' of campaigners (if that is the correct plural) because you are very much a one man band with a few speed-apologist followers who track out the same old lame comments. You keep harking back to the spur road incident but it could just have easily been a car pulling out into the fast lane that caused the motorbike to brake suddenly. If it was a real problem the mobile vans would be casuing accidents every 5 minutes and there would be chaos on the roads every time they set up somewhere. You are just using this as an excuse to attack something you don't like because you have obviously gone off the publicity radar recently and want to be able to dictate the agenda again. tbpoole
  • Score: -30

12:53pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Tictock says...

Wow! All this 'he said, she said, he said!' I drive a lot in Europe and in some countries, if there is a need for a speed camera, then they put one in, built-in and unmanned. Unobtrusive and cost efficient, as they say in Belgium, ' make this speed camera go, drive the correct speed'

There also seem some who would wish we all drove at 10 mph, then there would never be accidents - but then they forget about the British motorist!
Wow! All this 'he said, she said, he said!' I drive a lot in Europe and in some countries, if there is a need for a speed camera, then they put one in, built-in and unmanned. Unobtrusive and cost efficient, as they say in Belgium, ' make this speed camera go, drive the correct speed' There also seem some who would wish we all drove at 10 mph, then there would never be accidents - but then they forget about the British motorist! Tictock
  • Score: 5

12:58pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.
tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 22

1:01pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Wayne079 says...

In the United Kingdom, a clearway is a road or section of road on which it is illegal to stop for any reason other than a breakdown or an obstruction to the road such as stationary traffic. Its the law!! and they are breaking it......
In the United Kingdom, a clearway is a road or section of road on which it is illegal to stop for any reason other than a breakdown or an obstruction to the road such as stationary traffic. Its the law!! and they are breaking it...... Wayne079
  • Score: 24

1:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Dorset Logic says...

I like to slow down when I see them and then speed up again after passing them.

erm like everybody else apart from Mr Magoo.
I like to slow down when I see them and then speed up again after passing them. erm like everybody else apart from Mr Magoo. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 4

1:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

chiefwolf2 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take? chiefwolf2
  • Score: -18

1:14pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Narwhal says...

N Smith wrote:
I have seen people swerve in front of me on this particular bend when they have spotted the camera.Doesnt matter if you are driving correctly if someone drives into you at that speed it's going to be serious .Very stupid and dangerous place to put the van.
Presumably these particular culprits are not watching the road ahead and driving without due care and attention.

Perhaps the use of 'average speed cameras as noted near Honiton recently would be more effective, as it would reduce the fast slow fast slow irresponsible technique used by many driving morons.

There is no such thing as a driving accident, just a series oc contributary factors, including speed!
[quote][p][bold]N Smith[/bold] wrote: I have seen people swerve in front of me on this particular bend when they have spotted the camera.Doesnt matter if you are driving correctly if someone drives into you at that speed it's going to be serious .Very stupid and dangerous place to put the van.[/p][/quote]Presumably these particular culprits are not watching the road ahead and driving without due care and attention. Perhaps the use of 'average speed cameras as noted near Honiton recently would be more effective, as it would reduce the fast slow fast slow irresponsible technique used by many driving morons. There is no such thing as a driving accident, just a series oc contributary factors, including speed! Narwhal
  • Score: 1

1:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rayc says...

chiefwolf2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?
I guess the best route would be the one with no speed limits as the one with the cameras must be the most dangerous as they only put them where accident statistics show they are needed. I have got that right haven't I?
[quote][p][bold]chiefwolf2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?[/p][/quote]I guess the best route would be the one with no speed limits as the one with the cameras must be the most dangerous as they only put them where accident statistics show they are needed. I have got that right haven't I? rayc
  • Score: 17

1:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

nickynoodah says...

dorsetspeed don't know what he's talking about you know he makes it up as he goes along
shouldn't be on the road if you cant drive past a van without swerving.
hand your licence in dude.
dorsetspeed don't know what he's talking about you know he makes it up as he goes along shouldn't be on the road if you cant drive past a van without swerving. hand your licence in dude. nickynoodah
  • Score: -23

1:49pm Wed 5 Mar 14

chiefwolf2 says...

rayc wrote:
chiefwolf2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?
I guess the best route would be the one with no speed limits as the one with the cameras must be the most dangerous as they only put them where accident statistics show they are needed. I have got that right haven't I?
Based on your response......I think you need help....your mindset is clearly delusional....... and I mean that sincerely.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chiefwolf2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?[/p][/quote]I guess the best route would be the one with no speed limits as the one with the cameras must be the most dangerous as they only put them where accident statistics show they are needed. I have got that right haven't I?[/p][/quote]Based on your response......I think you need help....your mindset is clearly delusional....... and I mean that sincerely. chiefwolf2
  • Score: -19

1:59pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

chiefwolf2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?
Actually drivers panic brake at cameras even when they are within the limit. So driving at 29MPH in a 30 regardless of whether it's a non residential dual carriageway or a cull-de-sac will never kill anyone and 31 will? What kills is a misplaced or inflated trust in something as a safety tool as you demonstrate.

Where did I say I don't want speed limits or cameras? All I am asking for is road safety activities to be based on a professional comprehensive and independent analysis taking account for all the risks and showing that what has been chosen represents the best safety advantage for the costs. As I say no one in their right mind doing professional safety work would dream of doing anything else and we see exactly the opposite from Dorset Police, which is a blatant breach of integrity, professionalism and duty of care amongst other things.
[quote][p][bold]chiefwolf2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?[/p][/quote]Actually drivers panic brake at cameras even when they are within the limit. So driving at 29MPH in a 30 regardless of whether it's a non residential dual carriageway or a cull-de-sac will never kill anyone and 31 will? What kills is a misplaced or inflated trust in something as a safety tool as you demonstrate. Where did I say I don't want speed limits or cameras? All I am asking for is road safety activities to be based on a professional comprehensive and independent analysis taking account for all the risks and showing that what has been chosen represents the best safety advantage for the costs. As I say no one in their right mind doing professional safety work would dream of doing anything else and we see exactly the opposite from Dorset Police, which is a blatant breach of integrity, professionalism and duty of care amongst other things. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 20

2:11pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Gooby! says...

Disgraceful! What if a pedestrian or someone with a wheel chair or pushchair wanted to use the path? They would have to walk around this so called "safety van" into the path of traffic traveling at carriageway speeds.
Disgraceful! What if a pedestrian or someone with a wheel chair or pushchair wanted to use the path? They would have to walk around this so called "safety van" into the path of traffic traveling at carriageway speeds. Gooby!
  • Score: 8

2:23pm Wed 5 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

Yep, definitely looks dangerous to me. The van could without warning leap right out into the middle of the road and you wouldn't stand a chance, you'd have to hit it. To put it another way, this Ian Belchamber is wasted here, he should be writing his comedy for the TV, he'd make a fortune.
Yep, definitely looks dangerous to me. The van could without warning leap right out into the middle of the road and you wouldn't stand a chance, you'd have to hit it. To put it another way, this Ian Belchamber is wasted here, he should be writing his comedy for the TV, he'd make a fortune. breamoreboy
  • Score: -15

2:25pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Yep, definitely looks dangerous to me. The van could without warning leap right out into the middle of the road and you wouldn't stand a chance, you'd have to hit it. To put it another way, this Ian Belchamber is wasted here, he should be writing his comedy for the TV, he'd make a fortune.
You mean, just like the safety wall could leap into the road?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: Yep, definitely looks dangerous to me. The van could without warning leap right out into the middle of the road and you wouldn't stand a chance, you'd have to hit it. To put it another way, this Ian Belchamber is wasted here, he should be writing his comedy for the TV, he'd make a fortune.[/p][/quote]You mean, just like the safety wall could leap into the road? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 8

2:49pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Kwacker1 says...

Also looks like the van is parked on a public footpath, is that acceptable in dorset, or is that just for the Police ?
Also looks like the van is parked on a public footpath, is that acceptable in dorset, or is that just for the Police ? Kwacker1
  • Score: 8

3:30pm Wed 5 Mar 14

sunny1966 says...

Could Dorset Police do the right thing and put someone in charge of authorising with some common sense please. Come On, this is not rocket science, it is quite evident it is in a dangerouse place and also causing a blind spot. Pull Your Fingers Out, switch on, stand up and be counted, take responsibility, you are in a position of decision making, start making the right ones and learn by the wrong ones. I pay your wages and would like to see a return on that.
Could Dorset Police do the right thing and put someone in charge of authorising with some common sense please. Come On, this is not rocket science, it is quite evident it is in a dangerouse place and also causing a blind spot. Pull Your Fingers Out, switch on, stand up and be counted, take responsibility, you are in a position of decision making, start making the right ones and learn by the wrong ones. I pay your wages and would like to see a return on that. sunny1966
  • Score: 12

4:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

kangaroo_joey says...

miltonarcher wrote:
kangaroo_joey wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
So can you hand on heart tell me you have never gone 1mph over the speed limit? Or are you one the dangerous drivers that drives below the limit? Slow drivers cause as many accidents as fast ones
Where is your evidence, oops can't find it, thought so. Bit of advice, stop posting ill informed rubbish.
Now who isnt answering the question?? Have you ever gone over the speed limit even 1 mph in your life?
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kangaroo_joey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]So can you hand on heart tell me you have never gone 1mph over the speed limit? Or are you one the dangerous drivers that drives below the limit? Slow drivers cause as many accidents as fast ones[/p][/quote]Where is your evidence, oops can't find it, thought so. Bit of advice, stop posting ill informed rubbish.[/p][/quote]Now who isnt answering the question?? Have you ever gone over the speed limit even 1 mph in your life? kangaroo_joey
  • Score: -1

4:11pm Wed 5 Mar 14

kangaroo_joey says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Yep, definitely looks dangerous to me. The van could without warning leap right out into the middle of the road and you wouldn't stand a chance, you'd have to hit it. To put it another way, this Ian Belchamber is wasted here, he should be writing his comedy for the TV, he'd make a fortune.
Well it is parked on a public footpath, so thats a saftey hazard in itself
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: Yep, definitely looks dangerous to me. The van could without warning leap right out into the middle of the road and you wouldn't stand a chance, you'd have to hit it. To put it another way, this Ian Belchamber is wasted here, he should be writing his comedy for the TV, he'd make a fortune.[/p][/quote]Well it is parked on a public footpath, so thats a saftey hazard in itself kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 5

4:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Bournefre says...

A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location” with no mention as to who authorised it.
A better way of stopping motorists from speeding would be to return the limit to national levels, ie 70mph on dual carriageways. Fewer speeding motorists would result in fewer accidents where speed was a factor, making the roads safer with one simple reclassification.
A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location” with no mention as to who authorised it. A better way of stopping motorists from speeding would be to return the limit to national levels, ie 70mph on dual carriageways. Fewer speeding motorists would result in fewer accidents where speed was a factor, making the roads safer with one simple reclassification. Bournefre
  • Score: 9

4:24pm Wed 5 Mar 14

jonpds says...

Read this report: www.ukroadsense.co.u
k/pdf/objection.pdf which shows that a 70mph limit was and IS the correct speed limit for this road. It was lowered by a bunch of councillors who have no scientific background or knowledge of highway matters simply because they think slowing down cars saves lives. The 70mph limit was correct according to the DFT circular 1/06.
Read this report: www.ukroadsense.co.u k/pdf/objection.pdf which shows that a 70mph limit was and IS the correct speed limit for this road. It was lowered by a bunch of councillors who have no scientific background or knowledge of highway matters simply because they think slowing down cars saves lives. The 70mph limit was correct according to the DFT circular 1/06. jonpds
  • Score: 10

4:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rogace says...

i have met martin underhill found him reasonable and would be happy to add my name to a letter to him expressing my disgust at the dangerous operations they seem to be undertaking surreptitiously to obtain revenue from speeding tickets -

to park their so called safety vehicles in so many dangerous and illegal locations beggars belief -

this is not sour grapes about speeding cameras - not at all -
they have a job to do in the correctly placed manner - what DRSP are doing now is often a criminal offence and could cause an accident
i have met martin underhill found him reasonable and would be happy to add my name to a letter to him expressing my disgust at the dangerous operations they seem to be undertaking surreptitiously to obtain revenue from speeding tickets - to park their so called safety vehicles in so many dangerous and illegal locations beggars belief - this is not sour grapes about speeding cameras - not at all - they have a job to do in the correctly placed manner - what DRSP are doing now is often a criminal offence and could cause an accident rogace
  • Score: 10

4:47pm Wed 5 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.
Following this logic, every accident on every road is caused by the authorities using speed cameras, forcing law abiding citizens who're driving too fast to brake sharply, hence losing control of their vehicle and crashing. I love great comedy, Morecombe and Wise, The Two Ronnies and now dorsetspeed, the self appointed do gooder people's hero. Not.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.[/p][/quote]Following this logic, every accident on every road is caused by the authorities using speed cameras, forcing law abiding citizens who're driving too fast to brake sharply, hence losing control of their vehicle and crashing. I love great comedy, Morecombe and Wise, The Two Ronnies and now dorsetspeed, the self appointed do gooder people's hero. Not. breamoreboy
  • Score: -8

4:53pm Wed 5 Mar 14

notapeopleperson says...

yep that poses a risk, not like its marked up with high vis markings. you would have to be a special kind of stupid not to see it. and don't like speed cameras? don't speed. i have been caught twice by mobile speed cameras, both times i was speeding so its my own fault. i don't whinge or moan i just accept responsibility
yep that poses a risk, not like its marked up with high vis markings. you would have to be a special kind of stupid not to see it. and don't like speed cameras? don't speed. i have been caught twice by mobile speed cameras, both times i was speeding so its my own fault. i don't whinge or moan i just accept responsibility notapeopleperson
  • Score: -8

5:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

PRF says...

retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
Whatever your views on speed camera vans I agree that the location of this vehicle is in terms of hazard risk and danger to drivers' and the speed camera operative inside, is absolutely crazy.

For Dorset police to condone its positioning as .... 'at an approved speed camera site' is beyond belief!!!
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]Whatever your views on speed camera vans I agree that the location of this vehicle is in terms of hazard risk and danger to drivers' and the speed camera operative inside, is absolutely crazy. For Dorset police to condone its positioning as .... 'at an approved speed camera site' is beyond belief!!! PRF
  • Score: 15

5:11pm Wed 5 Mar 14

spooki says...

Do these (or any) cameras spot people who are travelling too slow? Just wondered as I was stuck behind someone doing 45mph on the Upton bypass this afternoon and someone else driving down the MIDDLE of Poole Lane at around 20mph and came to a complete stop before turning into an empty, unblocked junction.
Do these (or any) cameras spot people who are travelling too slow? Just wondered as I was stuck behind someone doing 45mph on the Upton bypass this afternoon and someone else driving down the MIDDLE of Poole Lane at around 20mph and came to a complete stop before turning into an empty, unblocked junction. spooki
  • Score: 4

5:13pm Wed 5 Mar 14

kai1986 says...

I disagree with the positioning of this camera completely. Its only there to make money. ..

I quite often see a speed camera near lyndhurst just before you go into a 60mph from a 30mph. Its is a very long build up out of the centre and 30mph is not a realistic speed for this section of road. Clearly for a money raiser in this position. No doubt about it.

Good to see people making a stand against this extortion.
I disagree with the positioning of this camera completely. Its only there to make money. .. I quite often see a speed camera near lyndhurst just before you go into a 60mph from a 30mph. Its is a very long build up out of the centre and 30mph is not a realistic speed for this section of road. Clearly for a money raiser in this position. No doubt about it. Good to see people making a stand against this extortion. kai1986
  • Score: 9

5:16pm Wed 5 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
You are right .
This is a stupid place to put a camera, and could cause a serious accident,
They should close the Oakdale intersection onto the Dorst way ,
Now that is a dangerous spot.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]You are right . This is a stupid place to put a camera, and could cause a serious accident, They should close the Oakdale intersection onto the Dorst way , Now that is a dangerous spot. cromwell9
  • Score: 6

5:21pm Wed 5 Mar 14

mookie44 says...

Gone National now! http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2573828/Police-speed
-traps-like-death-tr
aps-according-campai
gn-group-say-officer
s-parking-busy-roads
ides-verges-putting-
drivers-lives-risk.h
tml
Gone National now! http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2573828/Police-speed -traps-like-death-tr aps-according-campai gn-group-say-officer s-parking-busy-roads ides-verges-putting- drivers-lives-risk.h tml mookie44
  • Score: 5

5:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

cromwell9 says...

Even the POLICE lack common sense,some times.
Why dont they just say sorry,it was a stupid place to put a speed camara van on that spot.
No chance of that then,
Even the POLICE lack common sense,some times. Why dont they just say sorry,it was a stupid place to put a speed camara van on that spot. No chance of that then, cromwell9
  • Score: 10

5:25pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.
dorsetspleen

Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates.

I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth.......
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.[/p][/quote]dorsetspleen Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates. I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth....... tbpoole
  • Score: -8

5:29pm Wed 5 Mar 14

SeafaringMan says...

The van would not be a hazard to any driver obeying the speed limit. 50mph at this location. I drive down that section of the Dorset Way most days at 50mph and am continually overtaken by vehicles travelling at illegal speeds.The drivers then have the nerve to complain if they get fined!
The van would not be a hazard to any driver obeying the speed limit. 50mph at this location. I drive down that section of the Dorset Way most days at 50mph and am continually overtaken by vehicles travelling at illegal speeds.The drivers then have the nerve to complain if they get fined! SeafaringMan
  • Score: -5

5:40pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

SeafaringMan wrote:
The van would not be a hazard to any driver obeying the speed limit. 50mph at this location. I drive down that section of the Dorset Way most days at 50mph and am continually overtaken by vehicles travelling at illegal speeds.The drivers then have the nerve to complain if they get fined!
" and am continually overtaken by vehicles travelling at illegal speeds" So has the speed camera "solution" worked or not?
[quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: The van would not be a hazard to any driver obeying the speed limit. 50mph at this location. I drive down that section of the Dorset Way most days at 50mph and am continually overtaken by vehicles travelling at illegal speeds.The drivers then have the nerve to complain if they get fined![/p][/quote]" and am continually overtaken by vehicles travelling at illegal speeds" So has the speed camera "solution" worked or not? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

5:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money.
Sheer unadulterated rubbish. Incompetent motorists make our roads more dangerous not speed cameras Also the novelty of the money card wore off on me around 30 years ago.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money.[/p][/quote]Sheer unadulterated rubbish. Incompetent motorists make our roads more dangerous not speed cameras Also the novelty of the money card wore off on me around 30 years ago. breamoreboy
  • Score: -8

5:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ItsNotRocketScience says...

Mobile speed cameras introduce unnecessary danger and have caused deaths. If there is a genuine need to limit speed for the sake of safety then install a fixed camera.

Drivers should be concentrating on the road and driving to the conditions, not reacting to deliberately concealed mobile camera vans. Am I the only one who has experienced sudden braking by the car in front for no apparent reason only to then see a mobile camera van parked in the bushes?

The road in question in this article has an engineered speed that is much higher than the 50 mph limit (it was 70 mph for most of the time I have lived in the area - ie 1971). It has never been an "accident black spot".

These vans are used to generate revenue - their use is nothing to do with safety. If you don't agree, just look at the picture - where is the danger on that stretch of road? It is dual carriageway, divided highway, no junctions, no pedestrians and the van is deliberately concealed behind the curvature of the road.

The Police have a track record of locating mobile cameras in unapproved positions and directly against stated Government policy for their use. The Police are extremely reluctant to respond to Freedom of Information requests about their use and the money raised. I know - I have asked - they didn't answer the question asked and didn't meet the required timescale for responding. If these were the panacea for safety that is claimed, why don't the Police gleefully respond to such requests taking the opportunity to demonstrate their value?

The Police budgets are clearly too large if this represents an efficient use of scarce resource...unless of course this is actually a job-creating profit centre after all...
Mobile speed cameras introduce unnecessary danger and have caused deaths. If there is a genuine need to limit speed for the sake of safety then install a fixed camera. Drivers should be concentrating on the road and driving to the conditions, not reacting to deliberately concealed mobile camera vans. Am I the only one who has experienced sudden braking by the car in front for no apparent reason only to then see a mobile camera van parked in the bushes? The road in question in this article has an engineered speed that is much higher than the 50 mph limit (it was 70 mph for most of the time I have lived in the area - ie 1971). It has never been an "accident black spot". These vans are used to generate revenue - their use is nothing to do with safety. If you don't agree, just look at the picture - where is the danger on that stretch of road? It is dual carriageway, divided highway, no junctions, no pedestrians and the van is deliberately concealed behind the curvature of the road. The Police have a track record of locating mobile cameras in unapproved positions and directly against stated Government policy for their use. The Police are extremely reluctant to respond to Freedom of Information requests about their use and the money raised. I know - I have asked - they didn't answer the question asked and didn't meet the required timescale for responding. If these were the panacea for safety that is claimed, why don't the Police gleefully respond to such requests taking the opportunity to demonstrate their value? The Police budgets are clearly too large if this represents an efficient use of scarce resource...unless of course this is actually a job-creating profit centre after all... ItsNotRocketScience
  • Score: 7

5:56pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
ashleycross wrote:
The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.
Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money.
Sheer unadulterated rubbish. Incompetent motorists make our roads more dangerous not speed cameras Also the novelty of the money card wore off on me around 30 years ago.
If you notice I am just asking for some professional process for potentially risky activities on the public highways. A proper safety case and a proper and complete risk assessment. Without this Dorset Police are acting unprofessionally and incompetently and therefore dangerously.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ashleycross[/bold] wrote: The posts and comments here show how important it is to have these speed cameras. So many people just can't even see when they are speeding or spot the brightly marked camera vans. The best way to get rid of them would be for insurance companies to insist on a eyesight test every year before insuring anyone to drive. This would weed out people driving who can't see both the speed camera and the speedometer on their cars at the same time because of problems focussing and refusal to do the responsible thing and go to the opticians.[/p][/quote]Read the article. It;s not about speeding, it's about the police making our roads more dangerous to make money.[/p][/quote]Sheer unadulterated rubbish. Incompetent motorists make our roads more dangerous not speed cameras Also the novelty of the money card wore off on me around 30 years ago.[/p][/quote]If you notice I am just asking for some professional process for potentially risky activities on the public highways. A proper safety case and a proper and complete risk assessment. Without this Dorset Police are acting unprofessionally and incompetently and therefore dangerously. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 7

6:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.
dorsetspleen

Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates.

I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth.......
I'm not going down to this level tbpoole but will be happy to debate any genuine and useful points you may have
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.[/p][/quote]dorsetspleen Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates. I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth.......[/p][/quote]I'm not going down to this level tbpoole but will be happy to debate any genuine and useful points you may have dorsetspeed
  • Score: 8

6:02pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

kai1986 wrote:
I disagree with the positioning of this camera completely. Its only there to make money. ..

I quite often see a speed camera near lyndhurst just before you go into a 60mph from a 30mph. Its is a very long build up out of the centre and 30mph is not a realistic speed for this section of road. Clearly for a money raiser in this position. No doubt about it.

Good to see people making a stand against this extortion.
So you have decided the limit is not correct or realistic in Lyndhurst and so it is ok to speed regardless of possible road safety issues. Nice one.
[quote][p][bold]kai1986[/bold] wrote: I disagree with the positioning of this camera completely. Its only there to make money. .. I quite often see a speed camera near lyndhurst just before you go into a 60mph from a 30mph. Its is a very long build up out of the centre and 30mph is not a realistic speed for this section of road. Clearly for a money raiser in this position. No doubt about it. Good to see people making a stand against this extortion.[/p][/quote]So you have decided the limit is not correct or realistic in Lyndhurst and so it is ok to speed regardless of possible road safety issues. Nice one. tbpoole
  • Score: -7

6:02pm Wed 5 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

ItsNotRocketScience wrote:
Mobile speed cameras introduce unnecessary danger and have caused deaths. If there is a genuine need to limit speed for the sake of safety then install a fixed camera.

Drivers should be concentrating on the road and driving to the conditions, not reacting to deliberately concealed mobile camera vans. Am I the only one who has experienced sudden braking by the car in front for no apparent reason only to then see a mobile camera van parked in the bushes?

The road in question in this article has an engineered speed that is much higher than the 50 mph limit (it was 70 mph for most of the time I have lived in the area - ie 1971). It has never been an "accident black spot".

These vans are used to generate revenue - their use is nothing to do with safety. If you don't agree, just look at the picture - where is the danger on that stretch of road? It is dual carriageway, divided highway, no junctions, no pedestrians and the van is deliberately concealed behind the curvature of the road.

The Police have a track record of locating mobile cameras in unapproved positions and directly against stated Government policy for their use. The Police are extremely reluctant to respond to Freedom of Information requests about their use and the money raised. I know - I have asked - they didn't answer the question asked and didn't meet the required timescale for responding. If these were the panacea for safety that is claimed, why don't the Police gleefully respond to such requests taking the opportunity to demonstrate their value?

The Police budgets are clearly too large if this represents an efficient use of scarce resource...unless of course this is actually a job-creating profit centre after all...
What a brilliant idea, fixed cameras!!! One slight snag, the numerous law breakers who hurtle around at way over the speed limit, the sat nav flashes up a warning, they break like hell, pass the fixed camera, and then their heavily leaded right boot once again goes to the floor as they race towards the next warning. But let's talk safety. The best way to make our roads safer would be to strip seat belts, air bags, crumple zones and the like out of cars and fit large spikes instead. Then very low speed limits would be followed. The motorists would also be happier as less likelihood of damaging the most precious thing in the world, their car.
[quote][p][bold]ItsNotRocketScience[/bold] wrote: Mobile speed cameras introduce unnecessary danger and have caused deaths. If there is a genuine need to limit speed for the sake of safety then install a fixed camera. Drivers should be concentrating on the road and driving to the conditions, not reacting to deliberately concealed mobile camera vans. Am I the only one who has experienced sudden braking by the car in front for no apparent reason only to then see a mobile camera van parked in the bushes? The road in question in this article has an engineered speed that is much higher than the 50 mph limit (it was 70 mph for most of the time I have lived in the area - ie 1971). It has never been an "accident black spot". These vans are used to generate revenue - their use is nothing to do with safety. If you don't agree, just look at the picture - where is the danger on that stretch of road? It is dual carriageway, divided highway, no junctions, no pedestrians and the van is deliberately concealed behind the curvature of the road. The Police have a track record of locating mobile cameras in unapproved positions and directly against stated Government policy for their use. The Police are extremely reluctant to respond to Freedom of Information requests about their use and the money raised. I know - I have asked - they didn't answer the question asked and didn't meet the required timescale for responding. If these were the panacea for safety that is claimed, why don't the Police gleefully respond to such requests taking the opportunity to demonstrate their value? The Police budgets are clearly too large if this represents an efficient use of scarce resource...unless of course this is actually a job-creating profit centre after all...[/p][/quote]What a brilliant idea, fixed cameras!!! One slight snag, the numerous law breakers who hurtle around at way over the speed limit, the sat nav flashes up a warning, they break like hell, pass the fixed camera, and then their heavily leaded right boot once again goes to the floor as they race towards the next warning. But let's talk safety. The best way to make our roads safer would be to strip seat belts, air bags, crumple zones and the like out of cars and fit large spikes instead. Then very low speed limits would be followed. The motorists would also be happier as less likelihood of damaging the most precious thing in the world, their car. breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

6:04pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.
dorsetspleen

Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates.

I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth.......
I'm not going down to this level tbpoole but will be happy to debate any genuine and useful points you may have
Good because you never have any useful points (or purpose come to that).
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.[/p][/quote]dorsetspleen Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates. I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth.......[/p][/quote]I'm not going down to this level tbpoole but will be happy to debate any genuine and useful points you may have[/p][/quote]Good because you never have any useful points (or purpose come to that). tbpoole
  • Score: -11

6:06pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

Dorsetspleen - I think you'll find self-aggrandisement is the correct term for your behaviour....
Dorsetspleen - I think you'll find self-aggrandisement is the correct term for your behaviour.... tbpoole
  • Score: -10

6:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

pugs0404 says...

hay guys for all those complaining about it, simples DONT SPEED
if people didnt go faster than the speed limit then they wouldnt need them

and yes i drive a car, yes im a cyclist, yes i ride a moterbike. because i cycle i know how dangerous it is out there.
hay guys for all those complaining about it, simples DONT SPEED if people didnt go faster than the speed limit then they wouldnt need them and yes i drive a car, yes im a cyclist, yes i ride a moterbike. because i cycle i know how dangerous it is out there. pugs0404
  • Score: -10

6:14pm Wed 5 Mar 14

RAMON HH says...

Bournefre wrote:
A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location” with no mention as to who authorised it.
A better way of stopping motorists from speeding would be to return the limit to national levels, ie 70mph on dual carriageways. Fewer speeding motorists would result in fewer accidents where speed was a factor, making the roads safer with one simple reclassification.
Unbelievable for a Police spokesman to make a statement such as "The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location." Well it shouldn't have been authorised to be at that location, it's dangerous. On a bend, with no hazard lights blinking to make it clearly visible. Do the Police not care if they cause an accident? The Police should set an example to us on the roads with regards to road safety, well this doesn't does it?
[quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location” with no mention as to who authorised it. A better way of stopping motorists from speeding would be to return the limit to national levels, ie 70mph on dual carriageways. Fewer speeding motorists would result in fewer accidents where speed was a factor, making the roads safer with one simple reclassification.[/p][/quote]Unbelievable for a Police spokesman to make a statement such as "The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location." Well it shouldn't have been authorised to be at that location, it's dangerous. On a bend, with no hazard lights blinking to make it clearly visible. Do the Police not care if they cause an accident? The Police should set an example to us on the roads with regards to road safety, well this doesn't does it? RAMON HH
  • Score: 12

6:55pm Wed 5 Mar 14

nickynoodah says...

Life's too short to take any notice of dorsetspeed
and the vans that keep jumping in front of moving traffic
next he will be saying a little green man driving a steamroller jumped out and caused him to slow down to a safe speed.
Life's too short to take any notice of dorsetspeed and the vans that keep jumping in front of moving traffic next he will be saying a little green man driving a steamroller jumped out and caused him to slow down to a safe speed. nickynoodah
  • Score: -11

7:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

Posting this on behalf of someone who emailed me:

WAKE UP - DORSET ROAD SAFE - I am an Ex Fire Officer and I have witnessed many accidents on Dorset Roads. It isn't the speed that kills drivers it erratic driving. Just like panic braking caused by what is supposedly a "SAFETY CAMERA" If you work for Dorset Road Safe you need to seriously question why you do what you do. Read your own statement on your own website and when you get out of bed tomorrow morning to go and sit in your van, ask yourself the question. Do I really help save lives ? The answer is NO you do not. You create income for the state and encourage drivers to increase and decrease their speed which is erratic and causes accidents. WAKE UP !!!!!
Posting this on behalf of someone who emailed me: WAKE UP - DORSET ROAD SAFE - I am an Ex Fire Officer and I have witnessed many accidents on Dorset Roads. It isn't the speed that kills drivers it erratic driving. Just like panic braking caused by what is supposedly a "SAFETY CAMERA" If you work for Dorset Road Safe you need to seriously question why you do what you do. Read your own statement on your own website and when you get out of bed tomorrow morning to go and sit in your van, ask yourself the question. Do I really help save lives ? The answer is NO you do not. You create income for the state and encourage drivers to increase and decrease their speed which is erratic and causes accidents. WAKE UP !!!!! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 8

7:17pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

TheDerv wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
I like the use of the word "campaigners". I thought he acted totally alone.
There are currently just over 6500 of us.
As opposed to the 20 million drivers opposed to your standpoint?
[quote][p][bold]TheDerv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: I like the use of the word "campaigners". I thought he acted totally alone.[/p][/quote]There are currently just over 6500 of us.[/p][/quote]As opposed to the 20 million drivers opposed to your standpoint? tbpoole
  • Score: -10

7:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

nickynoodah wrote:
Life's too short to take any notice of dorsetspeed
and the vans that keep jumping in front of moving traffic
next he will be saying a little green man driving a steamroller jumped out and caused him to slow down to a safe speed.
We'll said!
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: Life's too short to take any notice of dorsetspeed and the vans that keep jumping in front of moving traffic next he will be saying a little green man driving a steamroller jumped out and caused him to slow down to a safe speed.[/p][/quote]We'll said! tbpoole
  • Score: -9

7:20pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

I meant well said.
I meant well said. tbpoole
  • Score: -10

7:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Mike R-B says...

jayelec wrote:
Yesterday it was way further up virtually on the top of the fly over at fleets bridge
Checking that Tesco was still out of pancake mix I expect.
[quote][p][bold]jayelec[/bold] wrote: Yesterday it was way further up virtually on the top of the fly over at fleets bridge[/p][/quote]Checking that Tesco was still out of pancake mix I expect. Mike R-B
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Posting this on behalf of someone who emailed me:

WAKE UP - DORSET ROAD SAFE - I am an Ex Fire Officer and I have witnessed many accidents on Dorset Roads. It isn't the speed that kills drivers it erratic driving. Just like panic braking caused by what is supposedly a "SAFETY CAMERA" If you work for Dorset Road Safe you need to seriously question why you do what you do. Read your own statement on your own website and when you get out of bed tomorrow morning to go and sit in your van, ask yourself the question. Do I really help save lives ? The answer is NO you do not. You create income for the state and encourage drivers to increase and decrease their speed which is erratic and causes accidents. WAKE UP !!!!!
I would think it highly unlikely he actually witnessed any accidents.

I've been driving for 34 years and never witnessed a single one.

More likely he turned up after they had happened.

Unless he was involved in the subsequent accident investigation then he has no grounds whatever to claim that speed was not a factor.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Posting this on behalf of someone who emailed me: WAKE UP - DORSET ROAD SAFE - I am an Ex Fire Officer and I have witnessed many accidents on Dorset Roads. It isn't the speed that kills drivers it erratic driving. Just like panic braking caused by what is supposedly a "SAFETY CAMERA" If you work for Dorset Road Safe you need to seriously question why you do what you do. Read your own statement on your own website and when you get out of bed tomorrow morning to go and sit in your van, ask yourself the question. Do I really help save lives ? The answer is NO you do not. You create income for the state and encourage drivers to increase and decrease their speed which is erratic and causes accidents. WAKE UP !!!!![/p][/quote]I would think it highly unlikely he actually witnessed any accidents. I've been driving for 34 years and never witnessed a single one. More likely he turned up after they had happened. Unless he was involved in the subsequent accident investigation then he has no grounds whatever to claim that speed was not a factor. tbpoole
  • Score: -6

7:25pm Wed 5 Mar 14

cenerentola says...

My concern is that the police's reputation is damaged. Otherwise law abiding citizens feel the police's vacuous arguments for the safety benefits of the cameras reflect their atitudes to towards what the public see as real crimes, motoring & otherwise.How can 75 mph on tha A338 or 55mph on Wessex Way be dangerous when traffic is light & there is no one ahead of you for 200m? Hand held phones in cars are more dangerous than driving over the drink limit. We all see examples of careless driving rather than deliberate dangerous driving & we know less tha 1% of those law breakers will be caught. Camera speeding tickets make the crime figures for the police look good because they can be recorded as crimes detected & prosecuted.
My concern is that the police's reputation is damaged. Otherwise law abiding citizens feel the police's vacuous arguments for the safety benefits of the cameras reflect their atitudes to towards what the public see as real crimes, motoring & otherwise.How can 75 mph on tha A338 or 55mph on Wessex Way be dangerous when traffic is light & there is no one ahead of you for 200m? Hand held phones in cars are more dangerous than driving over the drink limit. We all see examples of careless driving rather than deliberate dangerous driving & we know less tha 1% of those law breakers will be caught. Camera speeding tickets make the crime figures for the police look good because they can be recorded as crimes detected & prosecuted. cenerentola
  • Score: 13

7:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Peroni says...

speedy231278 wrote:
billy bumble wrote:
The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law
You mean not supposed to be. The majority of them clearly think they are!
Yep, Ashley Cross traffic lights .
One of our blue boys in a marked police car ....TEXTING,
The other day......wish I could have got a picture !!
Double standards .....
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: The police would do well to remember that they are not above the law[/p][/quote]You mean not supposed to be. The majority of them clearly think they are![/p][/quote]Yep, Ashley Cross traffic lights . One of our blue boys in a marked police car ....TEXTING, The other day......wish I could have got a picture !! Double standards ..... Peroni
  • Score: 9

7:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

breamoreboy wrote:
ItsNotRocketScience wrote:
Mobile speed cameras introduce unnecessary danger and have caused deaths. If there is a genuine need to limit speed for the sake of safety then install a fixed camera.

Drivers should be concentrating on the road and driving to the conditions, not reacting to deliberately concealed mobile camera vans. Am I the only one who has experienced sudden braking by the car in front for no apparent reason only to then see a mobile camera van parked in the bushes?

The road in question in this article has an engineered speed that is much higher than the 50 mph limit (it was 70 mph for most of the time I have lived in the area - ie 1971). It has never been an "accident black spot".

These vans are used to generate revenue - their use is nothing to do with safety. If you don't agree, just look at the picture - where is the danger on that stretch of road? It is dual carriageway, divided highway, no junctions, no pedestrians and the van is deliberately concealed behind the curvature of the road.

The Police have a track record of locating mobile cameras in unapproved positions and directly against stated Government policy for their use. The Police are extremely reluctant to respond to Freedom of Information requests about their use and the money raised. I know - I have asked - they didn't answer the question asked and didn't meet the required timescale for responding. If these were the panacea for safety that is claimed, why don't the Police gleefully respond to such requests taking the opportunity to demonstrate their value?

The Police budgets are clearly too large if this represents an efficient use of scarce resource...unless of course this is actually a job-creating profit centre after all...
What a brilliant idea, fixed cameras!!! One slight snag, the numerous law breakers who hurtle around at way over the speed limit, the sat nav flashes up a warning, they break like hell, pass the fixed camera, and then their heavily leaded right boot once again goes to the floor as they race towards the next warning. But let's talk safety. The best way to make our roads safer would be to strip seat belts, air bags, crumple zones and the like out of cars and fit large spikes instead. Then very low speed limits would be followed. The motorists would also be happier as less likelihood of damaging the most precious thing in the world, their car.
Following your logic then these drivers will have slowed down at the very dangerous spots they were put in to protect, so they must be working?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ItsNotRocketScience[/bold] wrote: Mobile speed cameras introduce unnecessary danger and have caused deaths. If there is a genuine need to limit speed for the sake of safety then install a fixed camera. Drivers should be concentrating on the road and driving to the conditions, not reacting to deliberately concealed mobile camera vans. Am I the only one who has experienced sudden braking by the car in front for no apparent reason only to then see a mobile camera van parked in the bushes? The road in question in this article has an engineered speed that is much higher than the 50 mph limit (it was 70 mph for most of the time I have lived in the area - ie 1971). It has never been an "accident black spot". These vans are used to generate revenue - their use is nothing to do with safety. If you don't agree, just look at the picture - where is the danger on that stretch of road? It is dual carriageway, divided highway, no junctions, no pedestrians and the van is deliberately concealed behind the curvature of the road. The Police have a track record of locating mobile cameras in unapproved positions and directly against stated Government policy for their use. The Police are extremely reluctant to respond to Freedom of Information requests about their use and the money raised. I know - I have asked - they didn't answer the question asked and didn't meet the required timescale for responding. If these were the panacea for safety that is claimed, why don't the Police gleefully respond to such requests taking the opportunity to demonstrate their value? The Police budgets are clearly too large if this represents an efficient use of scarce resource...unless of course this is actually a job-creating profit centre after all...[/p][/quote]What a brilliant idea, fixed cameras!!! One slight snag, the numerous law breakers who hurtle around at way over the speed limit, the sat nav flashes up a warning, they break like hell, pass the fixed camera, and then their heavily leaded right boot once again goes to the floor as they race towards the next warning. But let's talk safety. The best way to make our roads safer would be to strip seat belts, air bags, crumple zones and the like out of cars and fit large spikes instead. Then very low speed limits would be followed. The motorists would also be happier as less likelihood of damaging the most precious thing in the world, their car.[/p][/quote]Following your logic then these drivers will have slowed down at the very dangerous spots they were put in to protect, so they must be working? tbpoole
  • Score: -2

7:40pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ashleycross says...

trolley wrote:
Dangerous revenue raising and vindictive,still i spose it beats catching criminals
As I'm more likely to be killed by some pratt driving too fast and/or on my tail than a knife weilding maniac I'm very keen on these drivers being fined before they kill me or my children. Carry on Dorset Police-put these cameras where they will catch maximum inconsiderate idiots, or "criminals" as we law abiding citizens call them.
[quote][p][bold]trolley[/bold] wrote: Dangerous revenue raising and vindictive,still i spose it beats catching criminals[/p][/quote]As I'm more likely to be killed by some pratt driving too fast and/or on my tail than a knife weilding maniac I'm very keen on these drivers being fined before they kill me or my children. Carry on Dorset Police-put these cameras where they will catch maximum inconsiderate idiots, or "criminals" as we law abiding citizens call them. ashleycross
  • Score: -8

7:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Noidear says...

Having driven many miles over many years, I have seen so many near misses caused by speed and many crashes, if only I had a camera in my cars. Of corse many other things corse crashes, like braking heavily for a speed camera that is just pi-- poor driving. If u ant speeding y would u brake ,because u r a poor driver, just like the idiots on the motorways doing a emergency stop to look at a crash, how dump can u get.
Having driven many miles over many years, I have seen so many near misses caused by speed and many crashes, if only I had a camera in my cars. Of corse many other things corse crashes, like braking heavily for a speed camera that is just pi-- poor driving. If u ant speeding y would u brake ,because u r a poor driver, just like the idiots on the motorways doing a emergency stop to look at a crash, how dump can u get. Noidear
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Chris the plumber says...

suzigirl wrote:
Chris the plumber wrote:
I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others..
I hardly think the speed Mr Tim Rowsell was going was "obscene" and I am sure his family appreciate your comments! Is your plumbing van a Micra by any chance?
suzygal the limit where Tim lost control at speed was a 50 limit so yes his speed was obscene as he braked and left a skid mark on a deserted road on a lovely warm sunny morning, the conditions could not have been better we can all thank our lucky stares that this rider was not behaving in the way he did at a busy time of day.. I passed his body some 5 mins after it happened and I can assure you it was not a sight anyone should be made to observe.
even the driver of the police camera van looked shocked traveling on the same road just the other day two motorcylces over took me well in exsess of the safe limit... . you would think the death of one would make the others take greater care but no.... and yes I did used to have a Nissan micra very good car ..
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris the plumber[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many points Mr Belchamber has on his licence ? if Dorset Speed campaigning stuck to the law of this country they wouldn't have to worry speed cameras.... just remember that those who want to break the law and drive or ride at obscene speeds like Mr Tim Rowsell did are likely to pay with their lives or at worse kill others..[/p][/quote]I hardly think the speed Mr Tim Rowsell was going was "obscene" and I am sure his family appreciate your comments! Is your plumbing van a Micra by any chance?[/p][/quote]suzygal the limit where Tim lost control at speed was a 50 limit so yes his speed was obscene as he braked and left a skid mark on a deserted road on a lovely warm sunny morning, the conditions could not have been better we can all thank our lucky stares that this rider was not behaving in the way he did at a busy time of day.. I passed his body some 5 mins after it happened and I can assure you it was not a sight anyone should be made to observe. even the driver of the police camera van looked shocked traveling on the same road just the other day two motorcylces over took me well in exsess of the safe limit... . you would think the death of one would make the others take greater care but no.... and yes I did used to have a Nissan micra very good car .. Chris the plumber
  • Score: -5

8:15pm Wed 5 Mar 14

canfordcherry says...

Gooby! wrote:
Disgraceful! What if a pedestrian or someone with a wheel chair or pushchair wanted to use the path? They would have to walk around this so called "safety van" into the path of traffic traveling at carriageway speeds.
It's a non-pedestrian area so any one walking their would be pretty daft.
[quote][p][bold]Gooby![/bold] wrote: Disgraceful! What if a pedestrian or someone with a wheel chair or pushchair wanted to use the path? They would have to walk around this so called "safety van" into the path of traffic traveling at carriageway speeds.[/p][/quote]It's a non-pedestrian area so any one walking their would be pretty daft. canfordcherry
  • Score: 2

8:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

nickynoodah says...

What a fiasco
(Drive it like you stole it dorsetspeed) doing his community service in a farmers meadow
driving the tractor like a loony poor farmer wouldn't have any sheep left after the first day
just roast lamb and mint sauce and a few squash's
What a fiasco (Drive it like you stole it dorsetspeed) doing his community service in a farmers meadow driving the tractor like a loony poor farmer wouldn't have any sheep left after the first day just roast lamb and mint sauce and a few squash's nickynoodah
  • Score: -9

8:29pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Appleaday says...

OK, 10.55 on Tuesday. Halfway between the Christchurch turn off and Ashley Heath. A 338 northbound. Slow moving lorry on the inside. The Mini in front was overtaking. I followed. I was doing under 60 mph, at a guess the Mini was doing 65 mph, definitely no more. Suddenly the Mini slammed on its brakes as if doing an emergency stop. I keep a good distance, but I felt the antilock brakes operating n my car. Why? There was a speed camera van that the Mini had spotted going round the long bend. Bad driving … the driver should have known that the car was within the speed limit and there was absolutely no need to slam on the brakes. But I guess it was a natural feeling of alarm and guilt, though no offence was being committed. If the car behind had been tail-gating as so many do, there would have been a pile-up. It's a case of (a) speed camera vans on an open stretch of dual carriageway creating a hazard and (b) you should know how fast you're going and not panic at the sight of authority.

Given the recent weather, with so much heavy rain, my guess is that 1 in 10 cars in heavy rain drive on PARKING lights. Look in the handbook for your car. they're not SIDE lights, they're for parking. The law is clear, dipped HEADLIGHTS in rain. Do Dorset Police ever stop people for driving in rain with parking lights? Have they ever? Let alone misaligned lights, one broken light or (1 in 20?) with no lights at all in rain. There used to be a TV advert years ago showing cars in fog and rain. In both situations, you see the shape of the car BEFORE you see parking lights. Isn't it time to run that advert again? It's especially dangerous where 9 cars have headlights, then one has parking or none.
OK, 10.55 on Tuesday. Halfway between the Christchurch turn off and Ashley Heath. A 338 northbound. Slow moving lorry on the inside. The Mini in front was overtaking. I followed. I was doing under 60 mph, at a guess the Mini was doing 65 mph, definitely no more. Suddenly the Mini slammed on its brakes as if doing an emergency stop. I keep a good distance, but I felt the antilock brakes operating n my car. Why? There was a speed camera van that the Mini had spotted going round the long bend. Bad driving … the driver should have known that the car was within the speed limit and there was absolutely no need to slam on the brakes. But I guess it was a natural feeling of alarm and guilt, though no offence was being committed. If the car behind had been tail-gating as so many do, there would have been a pile-up. It's a case of (a) speed camera vans on an open stretch of dual carriageway creating a hazard and (b) you should know how fast you're going and not panic at the sight of authority. Given the recent weather, with so much heavy rain, my guess is that 1 in 10 cars in heavy rain drive on PARKING lights. Look in the handbook for your car. they're not SIDE lights, they're for parking. The law is clear, dipped HEADLIGHTS in rain. Do Dorset Police ever stop people for driving in rain with parking lights? Have they ever? Let alone misaligned lights, one broken light or (1 in 20?) with no lights at all in rain. There used to be a TV advert years ago showing cars in fog and rain. In both situations, you see the shape of the car BEFORE you see parking lights. Isn't it time to run that advert again? It's especially dangerous where 9 cars have headlights, then one has parking or none. Appleaday
  • Score: 11

8:58pm Wed 5 Mar 14

nickynoodah says...

If this if that the car behind had been tail-gating as so many do, there would have been a pile-up
if if its all ******* IF aunties and uncles
If this if that the car behind had been tail-gating as so many do, there would have been a pile-up if if its all ******* IF aunties and uncles nickynoodah
  • Score: -6

9:09pm Wed 5 Mar 14

beep-beep says...

Whenever I am driving, and I see a speed camera van, my instinctive reaction is to put the brakes on.
I am sensible enough to read road signs, especially ones that tell you the speed limit, before you ask.....
Matters not if I am doing 25mph in a 30 the brakes will go on. Instinctive reaction. Brake lights in their own right are a signal to other road users. Certainly I take notice of brake lights coming on, often it seems those following me don't.
I thought I was alone in wondering why the vans are positioned somewhere not easy to see. But if you drive regularly enough like I do, you know the usual hiding spots for them across the area. And I mean hiding spots, the intention is to catch you out - those living in outlying areas who commute and drive the most are most likely to be 'caught' out by a speed camera van.

The Speed Camera locations facebook group reports the positioning of these vans, and they follow a very consistent pattern, and nearly always are in the same locations. It is a very useful group, as I discovered yesterday before driving through Broadstone, there was a post earlier in the afternoon advising of a camera van in the area.

Is a speed camera van going to stop someone driving like an idiot on the road.

Only a marked Police car would make them wake up - is it me or do you always check the speedo when a marked Police car goes the other way?
Whenever I am driving, and I see a speed camera van, my instinctive reaction is to put the brakes on. I am sensible enough to read road signs, especially ones that tell you the speed limit, before you ask..... Matters not if I am doing 25mph in a 30 the brakes will go on. Instinctive reaction. Brake lights in their own right are a signal to other road users. Certainly I take notice of brake lights coming on, often it seems those following me don't. I thought I was alone in wondering why the vans are positioned somewhere not easy to see. But if you drive regularly enough like I do, you know the usual hiding spots for them across the area. And I mean hiding spots, the intention is to catch you out - those living in outlying areas who commute and drive the most are most likely to be 'caught' out by a speed camera van. The Speed Camera locations facebook group reports the positioning of these vans, and they follow a very consistent pattern, and nearly always are in the same locations. It is a very useful group, as I discovered yesterday before driving through Broadstone, there was a post earlier in the afternoon advising of a camera van in the area. Is a speed camera van going to stop someone driving like an idiot on the road. Only a marked Police car would make them wake up - is it me or do you always check the speedo when a marked Police car goes the other way? beep-beep
  • Score: 11

9:11pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Topnova says...

I am not against the speed vans in principle but when I passed the van on Monday on my way to Wareham my first thoughts were not about being caught speeding but that is a really dangerous place to breakdown and then I saw it was parked. I think any tickets given from the van on Monday from that position should be cancelled and instead the van and council should be prosecuted. Surely parking on the pavement/hard shoulder and in a dangerous position should not be tolerated by the police.
I am not against the speed vans in principle but when I passed the van on Monday on my way to Wareham my first thoughts were not about being caught speeding but that is a really dangerous place to breakdown and then I saw it was parked. I think any tickets given from the van on Monday from that position should be cancelled and instead the van and council should be prosecuted. Surely parking on the pavement/hard shoulder and in a dangerous position should not be tolerated by the police. Topnova
  • Score: 10

10:23pm Wed 5 Mar 14

pcpete says...

If anyone is interested in a few facts, here are a few:
Dorset Road Safe (DRS) staff are not police officers;
DRS operates a caught, no excuse policy but they excuse their own offences and misconduct. Police, fire and ambulance vehicles flashed by speed cameras are excused irrespective of being on emergency calls AND FOREIGN vehicles are excused simply because it may be costly to process them.
As partners in DRS, Highways Agency have the legal power to set speed limits but that power is supposed to be exercised on strict criteria including KSI rates. They simply do not comform.
The courts, CPS and local authorities are also partners. The latter contribute tax revenue to DRS.
And a few comments: Dorsetspeed is the messenger - don't shoot him and he does not deserve the reaction and abuse of some posters here. Do not expect anything from the supposedly independent police commissioner who simply accepts the police account. What is needed is for those who witness crass offending by DRS staff to report the offences, yes to the police, and be prepared to complain if they do not deal with the offence properly and then to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission if not satisfied. I have more if you want it.
If anyone is interested in a few facts, here are a few: Dorset Road Safe (DRS) staff are not police officers; DRS operates a caught, no excuse policy but they excuse their own offences and misconduct. Police, fire and ambulance vehicles flashed by speed cameras are excused irrespective of being on emergency calls AND FOREIGN vehicles are excused simply because it may be costly to process them. As partners in DRS, Highways Agency have the legal power to set speed limits but that power is supposed to be exercised on strict criteria including KSI rates. They simply do not comform. The courts, CPS and local authorities are also partners. The latter contribute tax revenue to DRS. And a few comments: Dorsetspeed is the messenger - don't shoot him and he does not deserve the reaction and abuse of some posters here. Do not expect anything from the supposedly independent police commissioner who simply accepts the police account. What is needed is for those who witness crass offending by DRS staff to report the offences, yes to the police, and be prepared to complain if they do not deal with the offence properly and then to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission if not satisfied. I have more if you want it. pcpete
  • Score: 10

11:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

pcpete wrote:
If anyone is interested in a few facts, here are a few:
Dorset Road Safe (DRS) staff are not police officers;
DRS operates a caught, no excuse policy but they excuse their own offences and misconduct. Police, fire and ambulance vehicles flashed by speed cameras are excused irrespective of being on emergency calls AND FOREIGN vehicles are excused simply because it may be costly to process them.
As partners in DRS, Highways Agency have the legal power to set speed limits but that power is supposed to be exercised on strict criteria including KSI rates. They simply do not comform.
The courts, CPS and local authorities are also partners. The latter contribute tax revenue to DRS.
And a few comments: Dorsetspeed is the messenger - don't shoot him and he does not deserve the reaction and abuse of some posters here. Do not expect anything from the supposedly independent police commissioner who simply accepts the police account. What is needed is for those who witness crass offending by DRS staff to report the offences, yes to the police, and be prepared to complain if they do not deal with the offence properly and then to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission if not satisfied. I have more if you want it.
Simply wrong and misleading on so many counts.
[quote][p][bold]pcpete[/bold] wrote: If anyone is interested in a few facts, here are a few: Dorset Road Safe (DRS) staff are not police officers; DRS operates a caught, no excuse policy but they excuse their own offences and misconduct. Police, fire and ambulance vehicles flashed by speed cameras are excused irrespective of being on emergency calls AND FOREIGN vehicles are excused simply because it may be costly to process them. As partners in DRS, Highways Agency have the legal power to set speed limits but that power is supposed to be exercised on strict criteria including KSI rates. They simply do not comform. The courts, CPS and local authorities are also partners. The latter contribute tax revenue to DRS. And a few comments: Dorsetspeed is the messenger - don't shoot him and he does not deserve the reaction and abuse of some posters here. Do not expect anything from the supposedly independent police commissioner who simply accepts the police account. What is needed is for those who witness crass offending by DRS staff to report the offences, yes to the police, and be prepared to complain if they do not deal with the offence properly and then to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission if not satisfied. I have more if you want it.[/p][/quote]Simply wrong and misleading on so many counts. tbpoole
  • Score: -10

11:06pm Wed 5 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.
dorsetspleen

Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates.

I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth.......
I'm not going down to this level tbpoole but will be happy to debate any genuine and useful points you may have
You mean you will be happy to argue red is green until the cows come home. No thanks!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, every single time you go round in circles trying to find some way to discredit the exposure of this scandal you fail. There is a good reason, you are wrong! Please detail anything I have stated which is incorrect (apart from the death statisitic for 2010 which I thanked you for correcting me on but still await confirmation from Dorset Police of the correct figure). It makes no difference to the facts if it is one person stating them or a million. As I said, a camera presents a panic braking reaction even if there is no chance of hitting it, this is very different to the normal flow of other vehicles on normal roads. If speeding was a real problem there would be accidents every second, let alone every 5 minutes.[/p][/quote]dorsetspleen Again you are actually starting to believe your own hype and confuse it with facts and how the real world operates. I don't need to discredit your piffle, you do a good job of that every time you open your mouth.......[/p][/quote]I'm not going down to this level tbpoole but will be happy to debate any genuine and useful points you may have[/p][/quote]You mean you will be happy to argue red is green until the cows come home. No thanks! tbpoole
  • Score: -9

11:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

illegally and unsafely parked,but that would probably be to complicated an issue for them to deal with.
illegally and unsafely parked,but that would probably be to complicated an issue for them to deal with. thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 5

2:36am Thu 6 Mar 14

ADST_2008 says...

It may be safer to reduce the speed limit even further say to 40 mph, especialy on the approach to the Holes Bay roundabout. now with the forthcoming "Temporary Stopping Place" being so close to a dual carriageway.
It may be safer to reduce the speed limit even further say to 40 mph, especialy on the approach to the Holes Bay roundabout. now with the forthcoming "Temporary Stopping Place" being so close to a dual carriageway. ADST_2008
  • Score: 1

6:28am Thu 6 Mar 14

francisisaac says...

Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country.
Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country. francisisaac
  • Score: 3

6:50am Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

francisisaac wrote:
Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country.
You mean 'hard working speeders'?
[quote][p][bold]francisisaac[/bold] wrote: Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country.[/p][/quote]You mean 'hard working speeders'? tbpoole
  • Score: -5

8:53am Thu 6 Mar 14

KKen96 says...

chiefwolf2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?
Based on the information available, I'd recommend Route 1, as evidenced daily by the people who use the unrestricted sections of Autobahn in Germany. Just because there are no speed limits and speed cameras does not imply that the road is unsafe.

Now if you told me that a particular road had a high number of accidents caused by poor road design, I may advise differently.
[quote][p][bold]chiefwolf2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?[/p][/quote]Based on the information available, I'd recommend Route 1, as evidenced daily by the people who use the unrestricted sections of Autobahn in Germany. Just because there are no speed limits and speed cameras does not imply that the road is unsafe. Now if you told me that a particular road had a high number of accidents caused by poor road design, I may advise differently. KKen96
  • Score: 5

9:06am Thu 6 Mar 14

Wesoblind says...

I journeyed back from london the other day at around half ten at night the other day, made great time and a nice safe journey driving at speeds i used my judgment to deem safe for the conditions, easily changing lanes when needed and not a problem in sight with everyone i came across being well aware of their surrondings. Then i got to the welcome to bournemouth sign, people started to bunch up, pulling into the otside lane doing 40 causing me to brake, paniking for junctions, tailgating each other, slamming on brakes for the speed cameras even though they were doing the 50mph limit!

Basically to anyone who drives anywere else in the uk, bournemouth speed limit restrictions are a danger that need to be addressed.
I journeyed back from london the other day at around half ten at night the other day, made great time and a nice safe journey driving at speeds i used my judgment to deem safe for the conditions, easily changing lanes when needed and not a problem in sight with everyone i came across being well aware of their surrondings. Then i got to the welcome to bournemouth sign, people started to bunch up, pulling into the otside lane doing 40 causing me to brake, paniking for junctions, tailgating each other, slamming on brakes for the speed cameras even though they were doing the 50mph limit! Basically to anyone who drives anywere else in the uk, bournemouth speed limit restrictions are a danger that need to be addressed. Wesoblind
  • Score: 5

9:08am Thu 6 Mar 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

tbpoole wrote:
francisisaac wrote:
Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country.
You mean 'hard working speeders'?
i think you should get the TROLL of the year award,you are obviously a total C"""
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]francisisaac[/bold] wrote: Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country.[/p][/quote]You mean 'hard working speeders'?[/p][/quote]i think you should get the TROLL of the year award,you are obviously a total C""" thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 8

9:11am Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

The collision in Kinson how why Dorset Roadsafe will never cut the number of fatal and serious injury collisions in the long run. Targetting drivers on Dorset Way, where the speed limit has been cut to 50mph after decades at 70mph, will never do it. It is a failed strategy as the KSI figures for 2012/2013 demonstrate.
If catching drivers exceeding the speed limit, on roads where the speed limit is low for its type is the name of the game, then so be it but if it is casualty reduction then no chance.
The collision in Kinson how why Dorset Roadsafe will never cut the number of fatal and serious injury collisions in the long run. Targetting drivers on Dorset Way, where the speed limit has been cut to 50mph after decades at 70mph, will never do it. It is a failed strategy as the KSI figures for 2012/2013 demonstrate. If catching drivers exceeding the speed limit, on roads where the speed limit is low for its type is the name of the game, then so be it but if it is casualty reduction then no chance. rayc
  • Score: 6

9:25am Thu 6 Mar 14

Rally says...

KKen96 wrote:
chiefwolf2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?
Based on the information available, I'd recommend Route 1, as evidenced daily by the people who use the unrestricted sections of Autobahn in Germany. Just because there are no speed limits and speed cameras does not imply that the road is unsafe.

Now if you told me that a particular road had a high number of accidents caused by poor road design, I may advise differently.
Surely it is invariably the driver and not the road that is unsafe?
If a road was physically unsafe, then every driver travelling along it is likely to have an accident, but the vast majority of drivers manage to avoid having an accident.
So, what or who is really responsible for the vast majority of road traffic accidents - the road or the driver travelling along it?
Common-sense alone says it is the latter.
[quote][p][bold]KKen96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chiefwolf2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?[/p][/quote]Based on the information available, I'd recommend Route 1, as evidenced daily by the people who use the unrestricted sections of Autobahn in Germany. Just because there are no speed limits and speed cameras does not imply that the road is unsafe. Now if you told me that a particular road had a high number of accidents caused by poor road design, I may advise differently.[/p][/quote]Surely it is invariably the driver and not the road that is unsafe? If a road was physically unsafe, then every driver travelling along it is likely to have an accident, but the vast majority of drivers manage to avoid having an accident. So, what or who is really responsible for the vast majority of road traffic accidents - the road or the driver travelling along it? Common-sense alone says it is the latter. Rally
  • Score: -1

9:48am Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, I would agree that the vast majority of problems are caused by bad / careless / aggressive / inattentive driving, although there are often crashes where it is thought that illness while driving is a factor. It is obvious that on the autobahn, or anywhere, it is not just the speed which determines what happens. On those unrestricted roads I expect that there is good management, police observation, with rapid response if there are any idiots. Perhaps when drivers are allowed to take responsibility they behave better, if you treat them all like naughty children it will encourage some to behave as such. There is a lot of psychology in driving and a great deal of complexity in road safety interventions. What we've ended up with, just an obsession with one number, is proof in itself that it's all gone wrong.

But as everyone knows, here in Dorset and in most places, it's not about road safety anyway, it's about making money, and obsession with such a simple thing as a number is a great way to do it.
Rally, I would agree that the vast majority of problems are caused by bad / careless / aggressive / inattentive driving, although there are often crashes where it is thought that illness while driving is a factor. It is obvious that on the autobahn, or anywhere, it is not just the speed which determines what happens. On those unrestricted roads I expect that there is good management, police observation, with rapid response if there are any idiots. Perhaps when drivers are allowed to take responsibility they behave better, if you treat them all like naughty children it will encourage some to behave as such. There is a lot of psychology in driving and a great deal of complexity in road safety interventions. What we've ended up with, just an obsession with one number, is proof in itself that it's all gone wrong. But as everyone knows, here in Dorset and in most places, it's not about road safety anyway, it's about making money, and obsession with such a simple thing as a number is a great way to do it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

9:51am Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

Rally wrote:
KKen96 wrote:
chiefwolf2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money
Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?
Based on the information available, I'd recommend Route 1, as evidenced daily by the people who use the unrestricted sections of Autobahn in Germany. Just because there are no speed limits and speed cameras does not imply that the road is unsafe.

Now if you told me that a particular road had a high number of accidents caused by poor road design, I may advise differently.
Surely it is invariably the driver and not the road that is unsafe?
If a road was physically unsafe, then every driver travelling along it is likely to have an accident, but the vast majority of drivers manage to avoid having an accident.
So, what or who is really responsible for the vast majority of road traffic accidents - the road or the driver travelling along it?
Common-sense alone says it is the latter.
Perhaps it is sometimes down to drivers but there is no disputing that some road types are a lot more dangerous than others. These are primarily single carriageway trunk routes such as the A31 and A35 west of Poole.
Engineering does have its place in casualty reduction but it falls a long way behind Enforcement and Education in the authorities priorities. Engineering invariably costs money whilst there is money to be made from the others and they are easy to do.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KKen96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chiefwolf2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]There are always more important things, does that does not mean we should ignore the less important things. If I'm bitter and twisted about anything, it's about the police making our roads more, not less dangerous, to make money[/p][/quote]Sorry but no......... IF DRIVERS AND BIKERS DIDNT SPEED THEY WOULDNT HAVE A NEED TO SLOW DOWN QUICKLY WHEN THEY SAW A SAFETY CAMERA VAN ! SIMPLE! ........SLOW DOWN OR BE KILLED OR KILL SOMEONE ELSE....Lets put it to the test DORSET SPEED... Answer me this..... pick a member of your family that you love dearly.... they ask your advice on how to get from A to B by car.... you have two equal distant routes to choose from... route 1 has no speed limit but would be faster ... route 2 has speed limits and safety cameras on the route... which route would advise them to take?[/p][/quote]Based on the information available, I'd recommend Route 1, as evidenced daily by the people who use the unrestricted sections of Autobahn in Germany. Just because there are no speed limits and speed cameras does not imply that the road is unsafe. Now if you told me that a particular road had a high number of accidents caused by poor road design, I may advise differently.[/p][/quote]Surely it is invariably the driver and not the road that is unsafe? If a road was physically unsafe, then every driver travelling along it is likely to have an accident, but the vast majority of drivers manage to avoid having an accident. So, what or who is really responsible for the vast majority of road traffic accidents - the road or the driver travelling along it? Common-sense alone says it is the latter.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it is sometimes down to drivers but there is no disputing that some road types are a lot more dangerous than others. These are primarily single carriageway trunk routes such as the A31 and A35 west of Poole. Engineering does have its place in casualty reduction but it falls a long way behind Enforcement and Education in the authorities priorities. Engineering invariably costs money whilst there is money to be made from the others and they are easy to do. rayc
  • Score: 4

9:52am Thu 6 Mar 14

tonyrobinson says...

Illegally parked Vehicles no matter who they belong to should be dealt with by the police , So i am waiting with interest to Dorset Police's response to the evidence provided. I may be wrong but I did believe that camera vans were only suppose to use designated sites ?
Illegally parked Vehicles no matter who they belong to should be dealt with by the police , So i am waiting with interest to Dorset Police's response to the evidence provided. I may be wrong but I did believe that camera vans were only suppose to use designated sites ? tonyrobinson
  • Score: 5

10:00am Thu 6 Mar 14

MotorbikeSam says...

I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to
break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...
I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians... MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -7

10:08am Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to
break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...
It is not a question of "mayhem" (although it was in Corfe Mullen where the camera van was actually blocking the road!!), it is simply a question of competence and integrity. Failure to demonstrate that the risks have been properly accounted for and that there is a potential positive safety effect is a breach of fundamental process for safety work, duty of care, etc. And the income, and the number of drivers still speeding, and the fact that they can now stay on the road instead of "racking up points" by paying the police MONEY (perverting the course of justice?) demonstrate that for those who want to speed, the current arrangements are quite suitable.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...[/p][/quote]It is not a question of "mayhem" (although it was in Corfe Mullen where the camera van was actually blocking the road!!), it is simply a question of competence and integrity. Failure to demonstrate that the risks have been properly accounted for and that there is a potential positive safety effect is a breach of fundamental process for safety work, duty of care, etc. And the income, and the number of drivers still speeding, and the fact that they can now stay on the road instead of "racking up points" by paying the police MONEY (perverting the course of justice?) demonstrate that for those who want to speed, the current arrangements are quite suitable. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

10:08am Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to
break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...
I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"?
I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...[/p][/quote]I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic. rayc
  • Score: 5

10:18am Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

rayc wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to
break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...
I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"?
I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.
If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments:

"Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”"
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...[/p][/quote]I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.[/p][/quote]If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments: "Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”" dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

12:51pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

thevoiceofreason1 wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
francisisaac wrote: Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country.
You mean 'hard working speeders'?
i think you should get the TROLL of the year award,you are obviously a total C"""
Why, because I don't like law-breakers? What does that make you?
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceofreason1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]francisisaac[/bold] wrote: Speed Van are a way to generate income period. Speed van are sometimes parked not too far from a speed camera because they are designed to trap hard working drivers so that revenues can be collected from them. They are dangerous and are not safe at all. As soon as you see a speed camera, you automatically try to slow down and the car behind you can then hit you from behind which could then lead to a fatal accident. Sometimes this van are parked where you cannot see them even though they are suppose to be visible. They know that most hard working people are too busy to try to prove that the van was hidden from view. The whole concept of speed van is another form of tax against hard working people of this country.[/p][/quote]You mean 'hard working speeders'?[/p][/quote]i think you should get the TROLL of the year award,you are obviously a total C"""[/p][/quote]Why, because I don't like law-breakers? What does that make you? tbpoole
  • Score: -10

12:53pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
rayc wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...
I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.
If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments: "Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”"
You wouldn't know what a satisfactory risk assessment was even if it slapped you in the face!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...[/p][/quote]I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.[/p][/quote]If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments: "Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”"[/p][/quote]You wouldn't know what a satisfactory risk assessment was even if it slapped you in the face! tbpoole
  • Score: -7

1:03pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
rayc wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...
I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.
If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments: "Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”"
You wouldn't know what a satisfactory risk assessment was even if it slapped you in the face!
tbpoole, the frustration is showing, now that you are descending into personal insults, name calling, etc. I don't have time for such childishness. I can understand how frustrating it must be for you to keep arguing a position you must know to be wrong for whatever reason it is that you do.

I will just say in response to this that even if I didn't know what a "satisfactory" RA looked like, I would still know what the total lack of any risk assessment looks like. It looks rather like the only pathetic response we've had from Dorset Police to a serious issue many are concerned about as you can see from the balance of comments and votes above.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...[/p][/quote]I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.[/p][/quote]If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments: "Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”"[/p][/quote]You wouldn't know what a satisfactory risk assessment was even if it slapped you in the face![/p][/quote]tbpoole, the frustration is showing, now that you are descending into personal insults, name calling, etc. I don't have time for such childishness. I can understand how frustrating it must be for you to keep arguing a position you must know to be wrong for whatever reason it is that you do. I will just say in response to this that even if I didn't know what a "satisfactory" RA looked like, I would still know what the total lack of any risk assessment looks like. It looks rather like the only pathetic response we've had from Dorset Police to a serious issue many are concerned about as you can see from the balance of comments and votes above. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

1:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
rayc wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...
I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.
If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments: "Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”"
You wouldn't know what a satisfactory risk assessment was even if it slapped you in the face!
tbpoole, the frustration is showing, now that you are descending into personal insults, name calling, etc. I don't have time for such childishness. I can understand how frustrating it must be for you to keep arguing a position you must know to be wrong for whatever reason it is that you do. I will just say in response to this that even if I didn't know what a "satisfactory" RA looked like, I would still know what the total lack of any risk assessment looks like. It looks rather like the only pathetic response we've had from Dorset Police to a serious issue many are concerned about as you can see from the balance of comments and votes above.
...and saying things like 'pathetic and dismissive' isn't insulting then?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I have never heard such a bunch or lame excuses for idiots who want to break the speed limit, the idiot who was following the overtaking mini who braked cuz they saw a speed camera van.... retake your test you are a danger to other road users and keep your distance ( only a FOOL breaks the 2 second rule) and the bloke who drove from London in excess of the speed limit lets hope your points build up sooner rather than later as you are a prize idiot and don't deserve a driving licence : so if a speed safety camera van can cause such mayam parked on the side of the road I fear for all road worker, lollipop ladies and gents and all pedestrians...[/p][/quote]I guess the question should be " Is the camera van more or less of a hazard to drivers compared to other drivers doing 57mph"? I presume as an authorised site to undertake enforcement that Dorset Roadsafe have undertaken a risk assessment and presumably come to the conclusion that it is safe to carry out enforcement there, including entry and egress. I am pleased that I am not the one crouched in the back of it with only a pair of doors separating me from the traffic.[/p][/quote]If they had carried out a satisfactory risk assessment, you would think that they would have been only too pleased to have referred us to it, rather than the pathetic and dismissive comments: "Dorset Police declined to comment on the photographs."A Police spokesman said: “The mobile camera van was on duty at an authorised location.”"[/p][/quote]You wouldn't know what a satisfactory risk assessment was even if it slapped you in the face![/p][/quote]tbpoole, the frustration is showing, now that you are descending into personal insults, name calling, etc. I don't have time for such childishness. I can understand how frustrating it must be for you to keep arguing a position you must know to be wrong for whatever reason it is that you do. I will just say in response to this that even if I didn't know what a "satisfactory" RA looked like, I would still know what the total lack of any risk assessment looks like. It looks rather like the only pathetic response we've had from Dorset Police to a serious issue many are concerned about as you can see from the balance of comments and votes above.[/p][/quote]...and saying things like 'pathetic and dismissive' isn't insulting then? tbpoole
  • Score: -4

1:20pm Thu 6 Mar 14

In Absentia says...

Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.
Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification. In Absentia
  • Score: -7

1:40pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

In Absentia wrote:
Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.
dorsetspeed has already said that he " should point out that the picture was originally posted on the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notifications group, not the Dorset Speed group".
It is very easy in this day and age of dash cams to take video without any user interaction. It is also easy to later take a single shot of any frame.
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.[/p][/quote]dorsetspeed has already said that he " should point out that the picture was originally posted on the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notifications group, not the Dorset Speed group". It is very easy in this day and age of dash cams to take video without any user interaction. It is also easy to later take a single shot of any frame. rayc
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

In Absentia wrote:
Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.
I took one of them having walked to the location, the others were taken by passengers
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.[/p][/quote]I took one of them having walked to the location, the others were taken by passengers dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

1:49pm Thu 6 Mar 14

TheDerv says...

In Absentia wrote:
Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.
Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car.

You are clutching at straws.
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.[/p][/quote]Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car. You are clutching at straws. TheDerv
  • Score: 1

1:51pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Argonaut says...

Unless you have cruise control on, and assuming it is your intention to keep to the speed limit, it is a fact that your speed edges up imperceptibly, given constant driving conditions, due to the succumbing to the muscular stress of holding the accelerator foot in the same position. You cannot know your speed exactly by sight, so you have to glance down at the speedometer from time to time, when it is safe to do so. But it has to be the driver's decision when that is the case. If you see a police vehicle as in the photograph, that will probably trigger a wish to check your speed, but it may not be safe to do so. Speeding is not the same as driving dangerously, and this is the offence the police should be more concerned with.
Unless you have cruise control on, and assuming it is your intention to keep to the speed limit, it is a fact that your speed edges up imperceptibly, given constant driving conditions, due to the succumbing to the muscular stress of holding the accelerator foot in the same position. You cannot know your speed exactly by sight, so you have to glance down at the speedometer from time to time, when it is safe to do so. But it has to be the driver's decision when that is the case. If you see a police vehicle as in the photograph, that will probably trigger a wish to check your speed, but it may not be safe to do so. Speeding is not the same as driving dangerously, and this is the offence the police should be more concerned with. Argonaut
  • Score: 1

2:02pm Thu 6 Mar 14

In Absentia says...

TheDerv wrote:
In Absentia wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.
Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car. You are clutching at straws.
That's fine, as long as the photos were taken legally. Mind you, the guidelines on the Facebook page are no guarantee that a mobile phone camera wasn't used by an actual driver, are they?

I'm more annoyed overall by the lazy journalism here and the distorted amount of access some people can get to the Echo when it suits a certain editorial slant.
[quote][p][bold]TheDerv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.[/p][/quote]Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car. You are clutching at straws.[/p][/quote]That's fine, as long as the photos were taken legally. Mind you, the guidelines on the Facebook page are no guarantee that a mobile phone camera wasn't used by an actual driver, are they? I'm more annoyed overall by the lazy journalism here and the distorted amount of access some people can get to the Echo when it suits a certain editorial slant. In Absentia
  • Score: -1

2:07pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

In Absentia wrote:
TheDerv wrote:
In Absentia wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.
Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car. You are clutching at straws.
That's fine, as long as the photos were taken legally. Mind you, the guidelines on the Facebook page are no guarantee that a mobile phone camera wasn't used by an actual driver, are they?

I'm more annoyed overall by the lazy journalism here and the distorted amount of access some people can get to the Echo when it suits a certain editorial slant.
More important, is there anything factually that you believe is incorrect anywhere or anything unreasonable about what appears to be missing and what is stated as the aim of the article:

“Whatever way you look at it, this does represent a danger. So what I am asking is a simple thing. I’m asking for Dorset Police to recognise and explain they understand the risks, then demonstrate a positive safety balance.”
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDerv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.[/p][/quote]Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car. You are clutching at straws.[/p][/quote]That's fine, as long as the photos were taken legally. Mind you, the guidelines on the Facebook page are no guarantee that a mobile phone camera wasn't used by an actual driver, are they? I'm more annoyed overall by the lazy journalism here and the distorted amount of access some people can get to the Echo when it suits a certain editorial slant.[/p][/quote]More important, is there anything factually that you believe is incorrect anywhere or anything unreasonable about what appears to be missing and what is stated as the aim of the article: “Whatever way you look at it, this does represent a danger. So what I am asking is a simple thing. I’m asking for Dorset Police to recognise and explain they understand the risks, then demonstrate a positive safety balance.” dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

2:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
In Absentia wrote:
TheDerv wrote:
In Absentia wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.
Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car. You are clutching at straws.
That's fine, as long as the photos were taken legally. Mind you, the guidelines on the Facebook page are no guarantee that a mobile phone camera wasn't used by an actual driver, are they? I'm more annoyed overall by the lazy journalism here and the distorted amount of access some people can get to the Echo when it suits a certain editorial slant.
More important, is there anything factually that you believe is incorrect anywhere or anything unreasonable about what appears to be missing and what is stated as the aim of the article: “Whatever way you look at it, this does represent a danger. So what I am asking is a simple thing. I’m asking for Dorset Police to recognise and explain they understand the risks, then demonstrate a positive safety balance.”
In Absentia

Don't get tricked into responding....dorset
spleen will just try and bog you down in his endless/pointless arguments which he knows are a minority viewpoint based on non-scientific analyses.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheDerv[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: Who took the the photos and were they in control of a vehicle whilst doing so? Perhaps dorsetspeed could let us all know just for clarification.[/p][/quote]Members of the Dorset Speed Camera Location Notification facebook page submitted these photos, it is made clear on the website that anyone taking photos should ensure they are in a safe place OR have the photo taken by a passenger in the car. You are clutching at straws.[/p][/quote]That's fine, as long as the photos were taken legally. Mind you, the guidelines on the Facebook page are no guarantee that a mobile phone camera wasn't used by an actual driver, are they? I'm more annoyed overall by the lazy journalism here and the distorted amount of access some people can get to the Echo when it suits a certain editorial slant.[/p][/quote]More important, is there anything factually that you believe is incorrect anywhere or anything unreasonable about what appears to be missing and what is stated as the aim of the article: “Whatever way you look at it, this does represent a danger. So what I am asking is a simple thing. I’m asking for Dorset Police to recognise and explain they understand the risks, then demonstrate a positive safety balance.”[/p][/quote]In Absentia Don't get tricked into responding....dorset spleen will just try and bog you down in his endless/pointless arguments which he knows are a minority viewpoint based on non-scientific analyses. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

2:49pm Thu 6 Mar 14

In Absentia says...

tbpoole

I'm not going to bother as Mr Bellchamber tries the old trick of asking the Police to prove they've done all the required safety assessments, but expects us all to simply believe that the evidence used in this article was obtained safely and if we question it, we have to prove otherwise. It's total hypocrisy.

I'd still like the Echo to comment on why a single issue campaigner (why is he described as a campaign group?) gets regular access to their journalists every time an issue relating to the roads comes up. It's the same with people like Dave Wells, whenever he wants to say something, Melanie Vass goes running. There's never an effort to produce a balanced article. I'll give it a couple of weeks and we'll have yet another rant about someone getting caught out by the Holes Bay camera. Yawn....
tbpoole I'm not going to bother as Mr Bellchamber tries the old trick of asking the Police to prove they've done all the required safety assessments, but expects us all to simply believe that the evidence used in this article was obtained safely and if we question it, we have to prove otherwise. It's total hypocrisy. I'd still like the Echo to comment on why a single issue campaigner (why is he described as a campaign group?) gets regular access to their journalists every time an issue relating to the roads comes up. It's the same with people like Dave Wells, whenever he wants to say something, Melanie Vass goes running. There's never an effort to produce a balanced article. I'll give it a couple of weeks and we'll have yet another rant about someone getting caught out by the Holes Bay camera. Yawn.... In Absentia
  • Score: -2

3:07pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

In Absentia wrote:
tbpoole

I'm not going to bother as Mr Bellchamber tries the old trick of asking the Police to prove they've done all the required safety assessments, but expects us all to simply believe that the evidence used in this article was obtained safely and if we question it, we have to prove otherwise. It's total hypocrisy.

I'd still like the Echo to comment on why a single issue campaigner (why is he described as a campaign group?) gets regular access to their journalists every time an issue relating to the roads comes up. It's the same with people like Dave Wells, whenever he wants to say something, Melanie Vass goes running. There's never an effort to produce a balanced article. I'll give it a couple of weeks and we'll have yet another rant about someone getting caught out by the Holes Bay camera. Yawn....
I see, so it's ok for the police to break the law in order to make money out of the public, but it's not ok for anyone to break the law to expose them doing it? That's what I call hypocrisy.

Where did I say I expect you to believe that the evidence was obtained safely?

It makes no difference if a drunk person filmed the speed camera while speeding with bald tyres and without licence and insurance, it was still parked dangerously and without any signs of any proper process required for any safety work. Just as the scamera people will tell you it makes no difference if the correct guidelines were followed - if you were speeding you were speeding.

I say again, if there are any facts or statements you disagree with lets's hear them then there can be proper debate - but don't just go on and on trying to criticise something without offering any actual substance just like tbpoole does
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: tbpoole I'm not going to bother as Mr Bellchamber tries the old trick of asking the Police to prove they've done all the required safety assessments, but expects us all to simply believe that the evidence used in this article was obtained safely and if we question it, we have to prove otherwise. It's total hypocrisy. I'd still like the Echo to comment on why a single issue campaigner (why is he described as a campaign group?) gets regular access to their journalists every time an issue relating to the roads comes up. It's the same with people like Dave Wells, whenever he wants to say something, Melanie Vass goes running. There's never an effort to produce a balanced article. I'll give it a couple of weeks and we'll have yet another rant about someone getting caught out by the Holes Bay camera. Yawn....[/p][/quote]I see, so it's ok for the police to break the law in order to make money out of the public, but it's not ok for anyone to break the law to expose them doing it? That's what I call hypocrisy. Where did I say I expect you to believe that the evidence was obtained safely? It makes no difference if a drunk person filmed the speed camera while speeding with bald tyres and without licence and insurance, it was still parked dangerously and without any signs of any proper process required for any safety work. Just as the scamera people will tell you it makes no difference if the correct guidelines were followed - if you were speeding you were speeding. I say again, if there are any facts or statements you disagree with lets's hear them then there can be proper debate - but don't just go on and on trying to criticise something without offering any actual substance just like tbpoole does dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

3:18pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

In Absentia wrote:
tbpoole

I'm not going to bother as Mr Bellchamber tries the old trick of asking the Police to prove they've done all the required safety assessments, but expects us all to simply believe that the evidence used in this article was obtained safely and if we question it, we have to prove otherwise. It's total hypocrisy.

I'd still like the Echo to comment on why a single issue campaigner (why is he described as a campaign group?) gets regular access to their journalists every time an issue relating to the roads comes up. It's the same with people like Dave Wells, whenever he wants to say something, Melanie Vass goes running. There's never an effort to produce a balanced article. I'll give it a couple of weeks and we'll have yet another rant about someone getting caught out by the Holes Bay camera. Yawn....
Dorset Roadsafe and the Camera Partnership before them have always had free access to the Echo for their press reports. The statements and figures they give and those of the Police and now the PCC are rarely questioned or queried and their statements taken at face value. This appears to have changed a little recently and whether this is a change of editorial staff I do not know.
It is surely time after a decade of camera enforcement, which has led to little change in the KSI statistics, for their methods to be challenged even more.
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: tbpoole I'm not going to bother as Mr Bellchamber tries the old trick of asking the Police to prove they've done all the required safety assessments, but expects us all to simply believe that the evidence used in this article was obtained safely and if we question it, we have to prove otherwise. It's total hypocrisy. I'd still like the Echo to comment on why a single issue campaigner (why is he described as a campaign group?) gets regular access to their journalists every time an issue relating to the roads comes up. It's the same with people like Dave Wells, whenever he wants to say something, Melanie Vass goes running. There's never an effort to produce a balanced article. I'll give it a couple of weeks and we'll have yet another rant about someone getting caught out by the Holes Bay camera. Yawn....[/p][/quote]Dorset Roadsafe and the Camera Partnership before them have always had free access to the Echo for their press reports. The statements and figures they give and those of the Police and now the PCC are rarely questioned or queried and their statements taken at face value. This appears to have changed a little recently and whether this is a change of editorial staff I do not know. It is surely time after a decade of camera enforcement, which has led to little change in the KSI statistics, for their methods to be challenged even more. rayc
  • Score: 3

4:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

PRF says...

Why no further response from Dorset Police re the Question of Hazard/risk?
The traffic camera vehicle is clearly parked in a dangerous position.
What will the response be when a cornering vehicle crashes in to the back of this thing, causing injuries or fatalities..... It is clearly an accident waiting to happen... no doubt about it.
I am surprised that the location of this mobile camera unit appears justifiable with the Dorset Police Traffic unit?
How about a reply from them?
Why no further response from Dorset Police re the Question of Hazard/risk? The traffic camera vehicle is clearly parked in a dangerous position. What will the response be when a cornering vehicle crashes in to the back of this thing, causing injuries or fatalities..... It is clearly an accident waiting to happen... no doubt about it. I am surprised that the location of this mobile camera unit appears justifiable with the Dorset Police Traffic unit? How about a reply from them? PRF
  • Score: 4

5:02pm Thu 6 Mar 14

MotorbikeSam says...

Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own... MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -8

5:23pm Thu 6 Mar 14

golfer33 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?
Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death.
Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?[/p][/quote]Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death. Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line. golfer33
  • Score: -3

5:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Dear oh dear. We do not despise the democratic society. We are concerned about a minority who abuse the law for personal gain while making the roads more dangerous. We do not want a "free for all", I have from day 1 been asking for more proper traffic police who can deal with a multitude of problems properly. if "speed kills" is all you have in your equation what speed limit does it tell you we need? zero. Of course we need limits and enforcements, but the limits must be sensible (i.e. not set 20% below average speeds) and the enforcements must be carefully selected for best safety benefit, not for maximum profit as they are at the moment. If the police are trying their best to keep us safe why have they refused to demonstrate it, and why do the refuse to be transparent with the finances?

And that bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers might be interested to know that 9 times as many of them are grieving due to simple driver error as speeding, but nothing is done about that 9 times opportunity to reduce KSIs because there isn't an easy way to make money out of it.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear. We do not despise the democratic society. We are concerned about a minority who abuse the law for personal gain while making the roads more dangerous. We do not want a "free for all", I have from day 1 been asking for more proper traffic police who can deal with a multitude of problems properly. if "speed kills" is all you have in your equation what speed limit does it tell you we need? zero. Of course we need limits and enforcements, but the limits must be sensible (i.e. not set 20% below average speeds) and the enforcements must be carefully selected for best safety benefit, not for maximum profit as they are at the moment. If the police are trying their best to keep us safe why have they refused to demonstrate it, and why do the refuse to be transparent with the finances? And that bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers might be interested to know that 9 times as many of them are grieving due to simple driver error as speeding, but nothing is done about that 9 times opportunity to reduce KSIs because there isn't an easy way to make money out of it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

5:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required.
I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required. I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected. rayc
  • Score: 5

5:51pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

golfer33 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?
Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death.
Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line.
Yes but since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death? Those "speedsters" won't get banned because they won't get points, they will just pay £110 a time which keeps all the jobsworths in work and they will stay on the road. I'm quite happy with my hobbies thanks.
[quote][p][bold]golfer33[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?[/p][/quote]Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death. Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line.[/p][/quote]Yes but since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death? Those "speedsters" won't get banned because they won't get points, they will just pay £110 a time which keeps all the jobsworths in work and they will stay on the road. I'm quite happy with my hobbies thanks. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

6:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Argonaut says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that. Argonaut
  • Score: 2

6:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Argonaut says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that. Argonaut
  • Score: 1

7:17pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
golfer33 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?
Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death.
Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line.
Yes but since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death? Those "speedsters" won't get banned because they won't get points, they will just pay £110 a time which keeps all the jobsworths in work and they will stay on the road. I'm quite happy with my hobbies thanks.
No because you can only do this course once every three years.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golfer33[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?[/p][/quote]Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death. Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line.[/p][/quote]Yes but since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death? Those "speedsters" won't get banned because they won't get points, they will just pay £110 a time which keeps all the jobsworths in work and they will stay on the road. I'm quite happy with my hobbies thanks.[/p][/quote]No because you can only do this course once every three years. tbpoole
  • Score: -1

7:36pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
golfer33 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?
Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death.
Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line.
Yes but since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death? Those "speedsters" won't get banned because they won't get points, they will just pay £110 a time which keeps all the jobsworths in work and they will stay on the road. I'm quite happy with my hobbies thanks.
No because you can only do this course once every three years.
No, it's either 12 or 6 months, not clear which :

"Named drivers are only permitted to attend one Driver Awareness course within a twelve month period. If a driver subsequently commits a further offence in a six month period after attending the course, then that offence will be dealt with via the fixed penalty process (fine and penalty points)."

http://www.dorset.po
lice.uk/default.aspx
?page=602

Assuming 12 months, someone caught 4 times in 3 years who would have been banned (perhaps correctly) might have only 3 points on their licence and be caught another 2 times before they are banned.

Great for Dorset Road Unsafe managers who have made £330 out of one driver to pay their own salaries, but if speeding is as dangerous as we are told, how is that possibly any good for road safety?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]golfer33[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death?[/p][/quote]Buying a motor bike then speeding on it, multiplies the chance of death. Get a decent hobby dorsetspeed. and let the speedsters get caught. ban them for a year they will soon tow the line.[/p][/quote]Yes but since when has the penalty for a minor motoring infringement been death? Those "speedsters" won't get banned because they won't get points, they will just pay £110 a time which keeps all the jobsworths in work and they will stay on the road. I'm quite happy with my hobbies thanks.[/p][/quote]No because you can only do this course once every three years.[/p][/quote]No, it's either 12 or 6 months, not clear which : "Named drivers are only permitted to attend one Driver Awareness course within a twelve month period. If a driver subsequently commits a further offence in a six month period after attending the course, then that offence will be dealt with via the fixed penalty process (fine and penalty points)." http://www.dorset.po lice.uk/default.aspx ?page=602 Assuming 12 months, someone caught 4 times in 3 years who would have been banned (perhaps correctly) might have only 3 points on their licence and be caught another 2 times before they are banned. Great for Dorset Road Unsafe managers who have made £330 out of one driver to pay their own salaries, but if speeding is as dangerous as we are told, how is that possibly any good for road safety? dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

8:08pm Thu 6 Mar 14

MotorbikeSam says...

Argonaut wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding
[quote][p][bold]Argonaut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -4

8:19pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Argonaut says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Argonaut wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding
I suggest you read up on the law. They are separate offences. As is driving without due care and attention.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Argonaut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding[/p][/quote]I suggest you read up on the law. They are separate offences. As is driving without due care and attention. Argonaut
  • Score: 5

8:19pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Argonaut says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Argonaut wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding
I suggest you read up on the law. They are separate offences. As is driving without due care and attention.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Argonaut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding[/p][/quote]I suggest you read up on the law. They are separate offences. As is driving without due care and attention. Argonaut
  • Score: 1

8:28pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Argonaut wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding
The activities of Dorset Roadsafe did not stop them happening and will not stop similar ones in the future. Camera vans on Dorset Way certainly won't. I believe the driver in Jade's case was already banned.
Take a long hard look at the 2013 fatalities and their causes. The activities of Dorset Roadsafe are not targeting those.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Argonaut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding[/p][/quote]The activities of Dorset Roadsafe did not stop them happening and will not stop similar ones in the future. Camera vans on Dorset Way certainly won't. I believe the driver in Jade's case was already banned. Take a long hard look at the 2013 fatalities and their causes. The activities of Dorset Roadsafe are not targeting those. rayc
  • Score: 3

8:43pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Argonaut wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding
Some speeding is obviously not dangerous - such as where councillors who have not the faintest idea about road safety set limits below the average speed - and then set it a further 10MPH below for NO safety justification whatsoever, but just for administrative convenience or so they claimed. This is what happened on the Dorset Way and the A338, the most profitable mobile locations in Dorset. Some speeding obviously is very dangerous, particularly when it relates to bad overtaking, drink driving, racing, road raging, etc.

Unfortunately, it is the safe "speeding" which attracts all the effort and attention, not the dangerous speeding, because safe "speeding" is so financially attractive. And as there is risk to enforcement, over enforcement of limits which are too low gives rise to accidents injuries and deaths that would not have otherwise occurred. Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition and the witness said he was riding sensibly. Jade was killed by a banned and uninsured driver who might have already have been locked up if we were not over depending on speed as the single solution to road safety and had more traffic cops. I don't know the circumstances of the other driver you mention.

It is always easy to pick on specific examples but the simple fact is that only 7% of ksi accidents have speeding as only one of usually many factors, where other factors can include racing, drink, crime, vehicle theft etc. and speed cameras cover an insignificant amount of road space.

The opportunities for overall KSI reductions from speed cameras are therefore obviously absolutely and totally insignificant, that would be bad enough but worse the negative effects, such as distraction from competent, honest, effective road safety work means that overall they have a negative impact on road safety.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Argonaut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding[/p][/quote]Some speeding is obviously not dangerous - such as where councillors who have not the faintest idea about road safety set limits below the average speed - and then set it a further 10MPH below for NO safety justification whatsoever, but just for administrative convenience or so they claimed. This is what happened on the Dorset Way and the A338, the most profitable mobile locations in Dorset. Some speeding obviously is very dangerous, particularly when it relates to bad overtaking, drink driving, racing, road raging, etc. Unfortunately, it is the safe "speeding" which attracts all the effort and attention, not the dangerous speeding, because safe "speeding" is so financially attractive. And as there is risk to enforcement, over enforcement of limits which are too low gives rise to accidents injuries and deaths that would not have otherwise occurred. Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition and the witness said he was riding sensibly. Jade was killed by a banned and uninsured driver who might have already have been locked up if we were not over depending on speed as the single solution to road safety and had more traffic cops. I don't know the circumstances of the other driver you mention. It is always easy to pick on specific examples but the simple fact is that only 7% of ksi accidents have speeding as only one of usually many factors, where other factors can include racing, drink, crime, vehicle theft etc. and speed cameras cover an insignificant amount of road space. The opportunities for overall KSI reductions from speed cameras are therefore obviously absolutely and totally insignificant, that would be bad enough but worse the negative effects, such as distraction from competent, honest, effective road safety work means that overall they have a negative impact on road safety. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

10:28pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Argonaut wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.
Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding
Some speeding is obviously not dangerous - such as where councillors who have not the faintest idea about road safety set limits below the average speed - and then set it a further 10MPH below for NO safety justification whatsoever, but just for administrative convenience or so they claimed. This is what happened on the Dorset Way and the A338, the most profitable mobile locations in Dorset. Some speeding obviously is very dangerous, particularly when it relates to bad overtaking, drink driving, racing, road raging, etc.

Unfortunately, it is the safe "speeding" which attracts all the effort and attention, not the dangerous speeding, because safe "speeding" is so financially attractive. And as there is risk to enforcement, over enforcement of limits which are too low gives rise to accidents injuries and deaths that would not have otherwise occurred. Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition and the witness said he was riding sensibly. Jade was killed by a banned and uninsured driver who might have already have been locked up if we were not over depending on speed as the single solution to road safety and had more traffic cops. I don't know the circumstances of the other driver you mention.

It is always easy to pick on specific examples but the simple fact is that only 7% of ksi accidents have speeding as only one of usually many factors, where other factors can include racing, drink, crime, vehicle theft etc. and speed cameras cover an insignificant amount of road space.

The opportunities for overall KSI reductions from speed cameras are therefore obviously absolutely and totally insignificant, that would be bad enough but worse the negative effects, such as distraction from competent, honest, effective road safety work means that overall they have a negative impact on road safety.
For goodness sake get a life. You will be standing for election next. Sounds like a political manifesto.

Just a shame the Echo has given you so much free publicity.

I'll shut up now so you don't get any more excuse on my behalf.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Argonaut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving. If it were, then the driver would be prosecuted with that.[/p][/quote]Speeding is not dangerous driving ?.tell jade clarks parents that ? tell Tim Roswells relative that tell the sad motorbike rider Ivan Tomlinson's loved ones that speeding is not dangerous ??? and.. all then other love ones of those killed because someone knew better than the law and common sense when it comes to speeding[/p][/quote]Some speeding is obviously not dangerous - such as where councillors who have not the faintest idea about road safety set limits below the average speed - and then set it a further 10MPH below for NO safety justification whatsoever, but just for administrative convenience or so they claimed. This is what happened on the Dorset Way and the A338, the most profitable mobile locations in Dorset. Some speeding obviously is very dangerous, particularly when it relates to bad overtaking, drink driving, racing, road raging, etc. Unfortunately, it is the safe "speeding" which attracts all the effort and attention, not the dangerous speeding, because safe "speeding" is so financially attractive. And as there is risk to enforcement, over enforcement of limits which are too low gives rise to accidents injuries and deaths that would not have otherwise occurred. Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition and the witness said he was riding sensibly. Jade was killed by a banned and uninsured driver who might have already have been locked up if we were not over depending on speed as the single solution to road safety and had more traffic cops. I don't know the circumstances of the other driver you mention. It is always easy to pick on specific examples but the simple fact is that only 7% of ksi accidents have speeding as only one of usually many factors, where other factors can include racing, drink, crime, vehicle theft etc. and speed cameras cover an insignificant amount of road space. The opportunities for overall KSI reductions from speed cameras are therefore obviously absolutely and totally insignificant, that would be bad enough but worse the negative effects, such as distraction from competent, honest, effective road safety work means that overall they have a negative impact on road safety.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake get a life. You will be standing for election next. Sounds like a political manifesto. Just a shame the Echo has given you so much free publicity. I'll shut up now so you don't get any more excuse on my behalf. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required.
I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected.
How do you know Casualties on Dorset Way haven't reduced? I wouldn't like to make such a sweeping statement trying to muddy the water without checking the facts first!
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required. I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected.[/p][/quote]How do you know Casualties on Dorset Way haven't reduced? I wouldn't like to make such a sweeping statement trying to muddy the water without checking the facts first! tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Thu 6 Mar 14

rayc says...

tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required.
I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected.
How do you know Casualties on Dorset Way haven't reduced? I wouldn't like to make such a sweeping statement trying to muddy the water without checking the facts first!
From Dorset roadsafe statistics. There were no KSI's in 2012 but there were none in 1998 either when the speed limit was 70mph. Likewise for 1999, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2009. If there are none in 2014 what will that prove? Hundreds of FPN's handed out in the last two years and a reduction in speed limit. I expect that Dorset Roadsafe would claim it is their policies if they could get zero KSI's at this location for 3 years in succession but that is what happened between 1998 and 2000.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required. I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected.[/p][/quote]How do you know Casualties on Dorset Way haven't reduced? I wouldn't like to make such a sweeping statement trying to muddy the water without checking the facts first![/p][/quote]From Dorset roadsafe statistics. There were no KSI's in 2012 but there were none in 1998 either when the speed limit was 70mph. Likewise for 1999, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2009. If there are none in 2014 what will that prove? Hundreds of FPN's handed out in the last two years and a reduction in speed limit. I expect that Dorset Roadsafe would claim it is their policies if they could get zero KSI's at this location for 3 years in succession but that is what happened between 1998 and 2000. rayc
  • Score: 2

10:52pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

One final comment; this from the DfT Think! Website:

"Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents.
In 2011, 3,267 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor.
The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph.
Fatal accidents are four times as likely on rural roads as urban roads"

That is why it is important to drive within the limit in the conurbation. It's not just the car drivers cocooned in their steel shell we need to think about, it's the vulnerable motorbike riders, pedestrians and cyclists as well.

It wasn't the car driver injured when there were fatals recently on Herbert Avenue and so on.

Dorsetspleen just tries to convince everyone that it doesn't matter about these sorts of incidents and that drivers should be free to decide for themselves what speeds to drive at because he doesn't agree with the way things work now. The consequences are potentially fatal.

Well he is wrong and in so many ways and it is time he finally put a stop to the sort of rubbish he keeps posting on the Echo website and his own pages.
One final comment; this from the DfT Think! Website: "Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents. In 2011, 3,267 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor. The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph. Fatal accidents are four times as likely on rural roads as urban roads" That is why it is important to drive within the limit in the conurbation. It's not just the car drivers cocooned in their steel shell we need to think about, it's the vulnerable motorbike riders, pedestrians and cyclists as well. It wasn't the car driver injured when there were fatals recently on Herbert Avenue and so on. Dorsetspleen just tries to convince everyone that it doesn't matter about these sorts of incidents and that drivers should be free to decide for themselves what speeds to drive at because he doesn't agree with the way things work now. The consequences are potentially fatal. Well he is wrong and in so many ways and it is time he finally put a stop to the sort of rubbish he keeps posting on the Echo website and his own pages. tbpoole
  • Score: -2

10:53pm Thu 6 Mar 14

MotorbikeSam says...

why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit.
Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better..............
...
"Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper
a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..
why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit. Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better.............. ... "Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die.. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required.
I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected.
How do you know Casualties on Dorset Way haven't reduced? I wouldn't like to make such a sweeping statement trying to muddy the water without checking the facts first!
From Dorset roadsafe statistics. There were no KSI's in 2012 but there were none in 1998 either when the speed limit was 70mph. Likewise for 1999, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2009. If there are none in 2014 what will that prove? Hundreds of FPN's handed out in the last two years and a reduction in speed limit. I expect that Dorset Roadsafe would claim it is their policies if they could get zero KSI's at this location for 3 years in succession but that is what happened between 1998 and 2000.
I'm afraid you can't read the charts properly.
1998-1 KSI, 1999 - 0, 2000- 1, 2001- 1. 2004 & 6 both 1. In fact only 4 out of the 13 years from 98 - 2010 didn't have KSIs.
None in the last two years of the chart when the limit was 50.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]The current enforcement regime is doing nothing to cut the number of KSI's. The first thing they did when cameras were introduced was to cut Traffic Officer numbers. As a result of the 2010 fatalities they cut the numbers by a further third. They announced it was 10 fatalities but apparently they are now recorded as 18 so perhaps the reason for the reduction didn't exist but who knows? Enforcing the reduced speed limit on Dorset Way will not reduce casualties and some targeted, intelligence led enforcement is required. I will embrace the Police when they get rid of Dorset Roadsafe and take back enforcement in house and remove the financial incentive of retaining the surplus from Driver Awareness Courses. I blame the Police for a decade of wasted opportunity to really do something about KSI in favour of enforcing the easily detected.[/p][/quote]How do you know Casualties on Dorset Way haven't reduced? I wouldn't like to make such a sweeping statement trying to muddy the water without checking the facts first![/p][/quote]From Dorset roadsafe statistics. There were no KSI's in 2012 but there were none in 1998 either when the speed limit was 70mph. Likewise for 1999, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2009. If there are none in 2014 what will that prove? Hundreds of FPN's handed out in the last two years and a reduction in speed limit. I expect that Dorset Roadsafe would claim it is their policies if they could get zero KSI's at this location for 3 years in succession but that is what happened between 1998 and 2000.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you can't read the charts properly. 1998-1 KSI, 1999 - 0, 2000- 1, 2001- 1. 2004 & 6 both 1. In fact only 4 out of the 13 years from 98 - 2010 didn't have KSIs. None in the last two years of the chart when the limit was 50. tbpoole
  • Score: -2

4:04am Fri 7 Mar 14

youravinalarf says...

Well you won't see one these sneaky vans on the Somerford Rd in Christchurch..So many pot holes it now resembles an African dirt track. If you went any faster than 10mph you would end up wrecking your suspension. Will Dorset County Council spend any money on resurfacing it.? .Not on your nelly, lets paint pretty white circles round the holes instead and patch em up till they get even bigger a week later !!
Well you won't see one these sneaky vans on the Somerford Rd in Christchurch..So many pot holes it now resembles an African dirt track. If you went any faster than 10mph you would end up wrecking your suspension. Will Dorset County Council spend any money on resurfacing it.? .Not on your nelly, lets paint pretty white circles round the holes instead and patch em up till they get even bigger a week later !! youravinalarf
  • Score: 4

8:54am Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
One final comment; this from the DfT Think! Website:

"Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents.
In 2011, 3,267 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor.
The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph.
Fatal accidents are four times as likely on rural roads as urban roads"

That is why it is important to drive within the limit in the conurbation. It's not just the car drivers cocooned in their steel shell we need to think about, it's the vulnerable motorbike riders, pedestrians and cyclists as well.

It wasn't the car driver injured when there were fatals recently on Herbert Avenue and so on.

Dorsetspleen just tries to convince everyone that it doesn't matter about these sorts of incidents and that drivers should be free to decide for themselves what speeds to drive at because he doesn't agree with the way things work now. The consequences are potentially fatal.

Well he is wrong and in so many ways and it is time he finally put a stop to the sort of rubbish he keeps posting on the Echo website and his own pages.
Good tbpoole, one of those infrequent occasions where you offer some data. Unfortunately it is a little narrow minded:

"Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents.” A bit misleading. SPEED includes both “travelling too fast for conditions” (i.e. within the limit) (12% fatals, 8%KSI) and “exceeding speed limit” (13% fatals, 6%KSI) (UK, 2011).

The obsession with driving within the limit could help with reducing “Exceeding the limit” but is not likely to improve “travelling too fast for conditions”, indeed it might make those within the limit more complacent.
So it seems that if you kill someone by driving at an inappropriate speed, you are just as likely to be below the limit as above it!! A bet that would surprise many. Just shows that that number in the circle isn’t quite the magical solution many think it is. Perhaps we should be promoting the idea of drivers being responsible and looking for hazards, not just looking at the speedo.

Also, the speed is usually only one factor where others can include drink, racing, vehicle theft, etc to which the speed would be secondary and of no concern to the driver and therefore no benefit in limit or enforcement in these most serious cases. And a serious injury can be as bad as a death.
So the main thing we should consider is that speeding is only a factor in only 7% of KSIs. This can hardly be considered a “main factor”
When I am vulnerable as a pedestrian or cyclist I far prefer to be among drivers who are looking out for me and slowing right down when they see me than blindly following the limit, even if they are going faster further up the road.

Of course speeding deaths matter. But as we have discussed before, the actions of Dorset Police simply don’t seem to be reducing road deaths, and it’s not surprising. As I am independent and free from financial or political motivations I can see the bigger picture. Putting all the effort into something that could at the most only reduce KSIs by some probably small proportion of 7% and ignoring simple things such as driver error, a factor in an astonishing 65% of KSIs, is like equipping ships with parachutes instead of lifeboats because someone got killed hitting the water.

I’m asking for proper policing, the equivalent of lifeboats on ships, and a part of proper policing is demonstrating that at least some thought has gone into choosing the best safety solutions – and Dorset Police don’t seem to be capable of doing even this.

And the only objections seem to be from what is a real minority who say the equivalent of “try telling Fred Bloggs family we should have lifeboats instead of parachutes on ships who got killed when he hit the water jumping off a ship”. If it were not for the obvious financial motivations it would be incredible.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: One final comment; this from the DfT Think! Website: "Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents. In 2011, 3,267 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor. The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph. Fatal accidents are four times as likely on rural roads as urban roads" That is why it is important to drive within the limit in the conurbation. It's not just the car drivers cocooned in their steel shell we need to think about, it's the vulnerable motorbike riders, pedestrians and cyclists as well. It wasn't the car driver injured when there were fatals recently on Herbert Avenue and so on. Dorsetspleen just tries to convince everyone that it doesn't matter about these sorts of incidents and that drivers should be free to decide for themselves what speeds to drive at because he doesn't agree with the way things work now. The consequences are potentially fatal. Well he is wrong and in so many ways and it is time he finally put a stop to the sort of rubbish he keeps posting on the Echo website and his own pages.[/p][/quote]Good tbpoole, one of those infrequent occasions where you offer some data. Unfortunately it is a little narrow minded: "Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents.” A bit misleading. SPEED includes both “travelling too fast for conditions” (i.e. within the limit) (12% fatals, 8%KSI) and “exceeding speed limit” (13% fatals, 6%KSI) (UK, 2011). The obsession with driving within the limit could help with reducing “Exceeding the limit” but is not likely to improve “travelling too fast for conditions”, indeed it might make those within the limit more complacent. So it seems that if you kill someone by driving at an inappropriate speed, you are just as likely to be below the limit as above it!! A bet that would surprise many. Just shows that that number in the circle isn’t quite the magical solution many think it is. Perhaps we should be promoting the idea of drivers being responsible and looking for hazards, not just looking at the speedo. Also, the speed is usually only one factor where others can include drink, racing, vehicle theft, etc to which the speed would be secondary and of no concern to the driver and therefore no benefit in limit or enforcement in these most serious cases. And a serious injury can be as bad as a death. So the main thing we should consider is that speeding is only a factor in only 7% of KSIs. This can hardly be considered a “main factor” When I am vulnerable as a pedestrian or cyclist I far prefer to be among drivers who are looking out for me and slowing right down when they see me than blindly following the limit, even if they are going faster further up the road. Of course speeding deaths matter. But as we have discussed before, the actions of Dorset Police simply don’t seem to be reducing road deaths, and it’s not surprising. As I am independent and free from financial or political motivations I can see the bigger picture. Putting all the effort into something that could at the most only reduce KSIs by some probably small proportion of 7% and ignoring simple things such as driver error, a factor in an astonishing 65% of KSIs, is like equipping ships with parachutes instead of lifeboats because someone got killed hitting the water. I’m asking for proper policing, the equivalent of lifeboats on ships, and a part of proper policing is demonstrating that at least some thought has gone into choosing the best safety solutions – and Dorset Police don’t seem to be capable of doing even this. And the only objections seem to be from what is a real minority who say the equivalent of “try telling Fred Bloggs family we should have lifeboats instead of parachutes on ships who got killed when he hit the water jumping off a ship”. If it were not for the obvious financial motivations it would be incredible. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

9:00am Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit.
Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better..............

...
"Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper
a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..
If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify.
You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit. Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better.............. ... "Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..[/p][/quote]If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify. You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 9

10:10am Fri 7 Mar 14

epswat says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
Your insults are not appreciated, and your arguments are moronic.

"It is an indisputable fact that speed kills"
Really? Can you supply evidence to prove this as everything I have read seems to suggest otherwise.

"if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country"
I don't think I have ever seen such a simplification as this! What about the accident rates on the unrestricted parts of the German Autobahn?
Why are there so many accidents in 30MPH zones?

Thanks for making me laugh...
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]Your insults are not appreciated, and your arguments are moronic. "It is an indisputable fact that speed kills" Really? Can you supply evidence to prove this as everything I have read seems to suggest otherwise. "if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country" I don't think I have ever seen such a simplification as this! What about the accident rates on the unrestricted parts of the German Autobahn? Why are there so many accidents in 30MPH zones? Thanks for making me laugh... epswat
  • Score: 7

10:14am Fri 7 Mar 14

MotorbikeSam says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit.
Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better..............


...
"Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper
a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..
If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify.
You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50.
so he wasn't doing 120 mph, ok maybe it was 140 ish what we do know is it was not 50 mph, the limit is there to protect lives and this chap chose to exceed this limit and paid with his life and as you know if he was doing 50 he would be reading this ????? if face if he was doing 70 he would be reading this ....surely this should send a clear message to you are all your followers ...
better to be late in this life than early in the next !! One day all speeding will be treated as we now treat drunk drivesr 12 months immediate ban and a hefty fine.... its the only way. 2nd offence 2 years and so on... I am sure you think speeding is a minor offence Mr Rowsell relatives would disagree.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit. Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better.............. ... "Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..[/p][/quote]If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify. You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50.[/p][/quote]so he wasn't doing 120 mph, ok maybe it was 140 ish what we do know is it was not 50 mph, the limit is there to protect lives and this chap chose to exceed this limit and paid with his life and as you know if he was doing 50 he would be reading this ????? if face if he was doing 70 he would be reading this ....surely this should send a clear message to you are all your followers ... better to be late in this life than early in the next !! One day all speeding will be treated as we now treat drunk drivesr 12 months immediate ban and a hefty fine.... its the only way. 2nd offence 2 years and so on... I am sure you think speeding is a minor offence Mr Rowsell relatives would disagree. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -6

10:22am Fri 7 Mar 14

lambertt says...

As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities.
As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities. lambertt
  • Score: 5

10:37am Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit.
Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better..............



...
"Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper
a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..
If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify.
You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50.
so he wasn't doing 120 mph, ok maybe it was 140 ish what we do know is it was not 50 mph, the limit is there to protect lives and this chap chose to exceed this limit and paid with his life and as you know if he was doing 50 he would be reading this ????? if face if he was doing 70 he would be reading this ....surely this should send a clear message to you are all your followers ...
better to be late in this life than early in the next !! One day all speeding will be treated as we now treat drunk drivesr 12 months immediate ban and a hefty fine.... its the only way. 2nd offence 2 years and so on... I am sure you think speeding is a minor offence Mr Rowsell relatives would disagree.
Actually, I believe the speed was estimated at about 78, wouldn't even have raised a fine or anything before some bureaucrats sitting in an office, not road safety professionals, decided to reduce the limit to 20% below even average measured speeds. The inevitable result of the lowering of this limit was increased income over increased safety. If he was doing 50 he could still have over reacted to the camera as many drivers do. It was clearly the adverse reaction to the camera that was a bigger factor in this death than the speed. If the camera had not been there the death would not have occurred for sure - does not mean that the camera was the only factor of course. But road safety activities need to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents no matter what the faults and factors are.

Actually the money making efforts for Dorset Road Unsafe are helping to trivialise speeding - whereas you would get a ban for speeding 4 times in 3 years, to maximise course profits, you could now be caught up to 7 times, nearly twice as many.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit. Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better.............. ... "Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..[/p][/quote]If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify. You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50.[/p][/quote]so he wasn't doing 120 mph, ok maybe it was 140 ish what we do know is it was not 50 mph, the limit is there to protect lives and this chap chose to exceed this limit and paid with his life and as you know if he was doing 50 he would be reading this ????? if face if he was doing 70 he would be reading this ....surely this should send a clear message to you are all your followers ... better to be late in this life than early in the next !! One day all speeding will be treated as we now treat drunk drivesr 12 months immediate ban and a hefty fine.... its the only way. 2nd offence 2 years and so on... I am sure you think speeding is a minor offence Mr Rowsell relatives would disagree.[/p][/quote]Actually, I believe the speed was estimated at about 78, wouldn't even have raised a fine or anything before some bureaucrats sitting in an office, not road safety professionals, decided to reduce the limit to 20% below even average measured speeds. The inevitable result of the lowering of this limit was increased income over increased safety. If he was doing 50 he could still have over reacted to the camera as many drivers do. It was clearly the adverse reaction to the camera that was a bigger factor in this death than the speed. If the camera had not been there the death would not have occurred for sure - does not mean that the camera was the only factor of course. But road safety activities need to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents no matter what the faults and factors are. Actually the money making efforts for Dorset Road Unsafe are helping to trivialise speeding - whereas you would get a ban for speeding 4 times in 3 years, to maximise course profits, you could now be caught up to 7 times, nearly twice as many. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

3:34pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ItsNotRocketScience says...

How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them).

"...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road."

Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...)

Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014.
How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them). "...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road." Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...) Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014. ItsNotRocketScience
  • Score: 5

4:18pm Fri 7 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

ItsNotRocketScience wrote:
How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them). "...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road." Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...) Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014.
Meaningless data collected by someone who knows everything about black boxes but nothing about how roads operate.

The reason why there is this difference is basically down to traffic speeds and road users.

70mph roads implies motorways or high speed dual carriageways. Most junctions are segregated, all the traffic is going in one direction (hopefully) at more or less the same speed and joins the main road via slip roads where they can build up speed first. Traffic is entirely motorised i.e. no pedestrians or cyclists. There are lots of crash barriers and other safety features to catch errant vehicles and keep them away from the other carriageway.

40mph road s are more likely to be in built up areas, have priority give way T-junctions or roundabouts - lots of opportunities for cars to have crashes when turning right - plus there will be vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians in the mix to consider, as well as vehicles travelling at significantly different speeds.

You only have to look at the news headlines when a vehicle crosses the central reservation on a motorway and causes carnage by hitting oncoming traffic, or when there is an incident in thick fog to realise why these faster roads are 'safer' the majority of the time but deadly when something goes wrong.
[quote][p][bold]ItsNotRocketScience[/bold] wrote: How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them). "...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road." Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...) Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014.[/p][/quote]Meaningless data collected by someone who knows everything about black boxes but nothing about how roads operate. The reason why there is this difference is basically down to traffic speeds and road users. 70mph roads implies motorways or high speed dual carriageways. Most junctions are segregated, all the traffic is going in one direction (hopefully) at more or less the same speed and joins the main road via slip roads where they can build up speed first. Traffic is entirely motorised i.e. no pedestrians or cyclists. There are lots of crash barriers and other safety features to catch errant vehicles and keep them away from the other carriageway. 40mph road s are more likely to be in built up areas, have priority give way T-junctions or roundabouts - lots of opportunities for cars to have crashes when turning right - plus there will be vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians in the mix to consider, as well as vehicles travelling at significantly different speeds. You only have to look at the news headlines when a vehicle crosses the central reservation on a motorway and causes carnage by hitting oncoming traffic, or when there is an incident in thick fog to realise why these faster roads are 'safer' the majority of the time but deadly when something goes wrong. tbpoole
  • Score: -4

4:26pm Fri 7 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote: why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit. Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better.............. ... "Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..
If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify. You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50.
so he wasn't doing 120 mph, ok maybe it was 140 ish what we do know is it was not 50 mph, the limit is there to protect lives and this chap chose to exceed this limit and paid with his life and as you know if he was doing 50 he would be reading this ????? if face if he was doing 70 he would be reading this ....surely this should send a clear message to you are all your followers ... better to be late in this life than early in the next !! One day all speeding will be treated as we now treat drunk drivesr 12 months immediate ban and a hefty fine.... its the only way. 2nd offence 2 years and so on... I am sure you think speeding is a minor offence Mr Rowsell relatives would disagree.
Actually, I believe the speed was estimated at about 78, wouldn't even have raised a fine or anything before some bureaucrats sitting in an office, not road safety professionals, decided to reduce the limit to 20% below even average measured speeds. The inevitable result of the lowering of this limit was increased income over increased safety. If he was doing 50 he could still have over reacted to the camera as many drivers do. It was clearly the adverse reaction to the camera that was a bigger factor in this death than the speed. If the camera had not been there the death would not have occurred for sure - does not mean that the camera was the only factor of course. But road safety activities need to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents no matter what the faults and factors are. Actually the money making efforts for Dorset Road Unsafe are helping to trivialise speeding - whereas you would get a ban for speeding 4 times in 3 years, to maximise course profits, you could now be caught up to 7 times, nearly twice as many.
As I have said before it could easily have been a vehicle pulling across into the outside lane that caused a crash like this.

In addition it could just have easily been a highway maintenance vehicle parked up at that location - they have orange and yellow stripes on as well, so at the distance the rider first saw it how was he to know it was a camera van?

So unless you are an accident investigation expert or are clairvoyant you have absolutely no right to claim that the crash would not have occurred without the camera van there.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: why oh why can`t Mr D speed talk in plain English instead of hiding behind gobbldegook, call a spade a spade, I advocate a low speed limit to save lives you advocate a high. or no limit. Surely you have seen the TV ad where a boy is hit at 40 and dies and at 30 he survives.. but of course you don't believe that cuz you know better.............. ... "Mr Rowsell was driving at a speed entirely appropriate for the road type and condition" who said that Dorset speed ??well if it was so safe why could he not stop if there was an obstacle in the road or a broken down car..... no his speed was so fast that he was incapable of slowing to 50 mph good bike will stop far quicker than a car so shall we say he was doing say 120 maybe quicker.. that is a driving ban which I would suggest is better that hitting the Armco after a tank slapper a race track is where those speed belong as any right thinking person would agree. ( except you ) As for poor Jade clark she was indeed knocked of her bike by a driver who showed no consideration for any road user but killed by two vans traveling within the speed limit of 70, they could not avoid her which is a very good reason to have a 50 or less limit on all roads where slow moving traffic can be expected.... all roads except motorways.. if all cars were restricted to 50 by technology may of our citizens will not die..[/p][/quote]If there is anything you don’t understand please point it out and I will clarify. You advocate a low limit. What does low mean? Perhaps the road signs should not have numbers, they should just say “go slow”? Our safest roads are the fastest, SPEED IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. The camera that resulted in Mt Rowsells death was not an object in the road. It was a device that came into view that cause unnecessary panic braking. He was not doing 120. If your solution is “someone got killed, the limit has to go down” then we WILL end up with limits of ZERO. I don’t think anyone will take anyone seriously who is suggesting limiting all vehicles to 50.[/p][/quote]so he wasn't doing 120 mph, ok maybe it was 140 ish what we do know is it was not 50 mph, the limit is there to protect lives and this chap chose to exceed this limit and paid with his life and as you know if he was doing 50 he would be reading this ????? if face if he was doing 70 he would be reading this ....surely this should send a clear message to you are all your followers ... better to be late in this life than early in the next !! One day all speeding will be treated as we now treat drunk drivesr 12 months immediate ban and a hefty fine.... its the only way. 2nd offence 2 years and so on... I am sure you think speeding is a minor offence Mr Rowsell relatives would disagree.[/p][/quote]Actually, I believe the speed was estimated at about 78, wouldn't even have raised a fine or anything before some bureaucrats sitting in an office, not road safety professionals, decided to reduce the limit to 20% below even average measured speeds. The inevitable result of the lowering of this limit was increased income over increased safety. If he was doing 50 he could still have over reacted to the camera as many drivers do. It was clearly the adverse reaction to the camera that was a bigger factor in this death than the speed. If the camera had not been there the death would not have occurred for sure - does not mean that the camera was the only factor of course. But road safety activities need to be turning accident opportunities into correction / the appropriate penalty, not turning accident opportunities into fatal accidents no matter what the faults and factors are. Actually the money making efforts for Dorset Road Unsafe are helping to trivialise speeding - whereas you would get a ban for speeding 4 times in 3 years, to maximise course profits, you could now be caught up to 7 times, nearly twice as many.[/p][/quote]As I have said before it could easily have been a vehicle pulling across into the outside lane that caused a crash like this. In addition it could just have easily been a highway maintenance vehicle parked up at that location - they have orange and yellow stripes on as well, so at the distance the rider first saw it how was he to know it was a camera van? So unless you are an accident investigation expert or are clairvoyant you have absolutely no right to claim that the crash would not have occurred without the camera van there. tbpoole
  • Score: -5

4:59pm Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, An experienced driver learns over time instinctively where real risks come from. A parked vehicle to the side of the road cannot suddenly move sideways. Speed camera vans cause the unique situation of panic braking the instant they are spotted even thought there may be no chance whatsoever of a collision. This is completely different.

Yes you are quite right, it's not just speed cameras people now panic brake for, it's anything that even looks like one. That's even worse.

See if you can work out from the extract below if the crash would have happened without the camera:

"PC Hayward added: “When the excess speed is considered, along with the presence of the road safety camera van, it’s very likely he has observed the van and tried to reduce his speed rapidly.”

Recording the verdict that Mr Rowsell’s death was due to a road accident, district coroner Sheriff Payne said: “I can only conclude that he has in response to the presence of the safety van.

No other person or vehicle was involved.”
tbpoole, An experienced driver learns over time instinctively where real risks come from. A parked vehicle to the side of the road cannot suddenly move sideways. Speed camera vans cause the unique situation of panic braking the instant they are spotted even thought there may be no chance whatsoever of a collision. This is completely different. Yes you are quite right, it's not just speed cameras people now panic brake for, it's anything that even looks like one. That's even worse. See if you can work out from the extract below if the crash would have happened without the camera: "PC Hayward added: “When the excess speed is considered, along with the presence of the road safety camera van, it’s very likely he has observed the van and tried to reduce his speed rapidly.” Recording the verdict that Mr Rowsell’s death was due to a road accident, district coroner Sheriff Payne said: “I can only conclude that he has [braked] in response to the presence of the safety van. No other person or vehicle was involved.” dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

7:12pm Fri 7 Mar 14

ItsNotRocketScience says...

ItsNotRocketScience wrote:
How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them). "...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road." Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...) Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014.
Meaningless data collected by someone who knows everything about black boxes but nothing about how roads operate.

The reason why there is this difference is basically down to traffic speeds and road users.

70mph roads implies motorways or high speed dual carriageways. Most junctions are segregated, all the traffic is going in one direction (hopefully) at more or less the same speed and joins the main road via slip roads where they can build up speed first. Traffic is entirely motorised i.e. no pedestrians or cyclists. There are lots of crash barriers and other safety features to catch errant vehicles and keep them away from the other carriageway.

40mph road s are more likely to be in built up areas, have priority give way T-junctions or roundabouts - lots of opportunities for cars to have crashes when turning right - plus there will be vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians in the mix to consider, as well as vehicles travelling at significantly different speeds.

You only have to look at the news headlines when a vehicle crosses the central reservation on a motorway and causes carnage by hitting oncoming traffic, or when there is an incident in thick fog to realise why these faster roads are 'safer' the majority of the time but deadly when something goes wrong.


Meaningless? On what basis? 764 million miles of data taken every few seconds not sufficient for you? I assume your statement “knows…nothing about how roads operate” is an error because roads don’t actually do anything – they are static – it is the vehicles that move.

This proves that the argument that higher speed = higher risk is fundamentally flawed. Equally your argument about the makeup of roads actually supports my stance that it is perfectly safe to drive along the stretch of road in question at 70mph as it is a divided highway, no pedestrians, no cyclists etc.

Another fact for you – when this road had a 70 mph speed limit the Police issued zero speeding tickets because no speed limit enforcement was undertaken because it was not deemed necessary (and it has never been an accident black spot).

However since the limit was reduced well below its safe engineered speed, suddenly it has become a safety concern so it now hides camera vans to protect us all from ourselves as now it is a source of danger. Curiously, accident rates don’t shoot up when no cameras are being used on this stretch of road...

This is nothing to do with safety – it’s about money.
ItsNotRocketScience wrote: How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them). "...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road." Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...) Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014. Meaningless data collected by someone who knows everything about black boxes but nothing about how roads operate. The reason why there is this difference is basically down to traffic speeds and road users. 70mph roads implies motorways or high speed dual carriageways. Most junctions are segregated, all the traffic is going in one direction (hopefully) at more or less the same speed and joins the main road via slip roads where they can build up speed first. Traffic is entirely motorised i.e. no pedestrians or cyclists. There are lots of crash barriers and other safety features to catch errant vehicles and keep them away from the other carriageway. 40mph road s are more likely to be in built up areas, have priority give way T-junctions or roundabouts - lots of opportunities for cars to have crashes when turning right - plus there will be vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians in the mix to consider, as well as vehicles travelling at significantly different speeds. You only have to look at the news headlines when a vehicle crosses the central reservation on a motorway and causes carnage by hitting oncoming traffic, or when there is an incident in thick fog to realise why these faster roads are 'safer' the majority of the time but deadly when something goes wrong. Meaningless? On what basis? 764 million miles of data taken every few seconds not sufficient for you? I assume your statement “knows…nothing about how roads operate” is an error because roads don’t actually do anything – they are static – it is the vehicles that move. This proves that the argument that higher speed = higher risk is fundamentally flawed. Equally your argument about the makeup of roads actually supports my stance that it is perfectly safe to drive along the stretch of road in question at 70mph as it is a divided highway, no pedestrians, no cyclists etc. Another fact for you – when this road had a 70 mph speed limit the Police issued zero speeding tickets because no speed limit enforcement was undertaken because it was not deemed necessary (and it has never been an accident black spot). However since the limit was reduced well below its safe engineered speed, suddenly it has become a safety concern so it now hides camera vans to protect us all from ourselves as now it is a source of danger. Curiously, accident rates don’t shoot up when no cameras are being used on this stretch of road... This is nothing to do with safety – it’s about money. ItsNotRocketScience
  • Score: 4

8:07pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Roginthesouth says...

Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.
Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists. Roginthesouth
  • Score: -4

8:11pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Roginthesouth says...

lambertt wrote:
As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities.
Well don't drive at 35mph in a 30 mph limit then. We can do without visitors to Bournemouth exceeding legal speed limits, although your financial contribution is much appreciated.
[quote][p][bold]lambertt[/bold] wrote: As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities.[/p][/quote]Well don't drive at 35mph in a 30 mph limit then. We can do without visitors to Bournemouth exceeding legal speed limits, although your financial contribution is much appreciated. Roginthesouth
  • Score: -1

8:13pm Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

Roginthesouth wrote:
lambertt wrote:
As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities.
Well don't drive at 35mph in a 30 mph limit then. We can do without visitors to Bournemouth exceeding legal speed limits, although your financial contribution is much appreciated.
no interest in road safety then?
[quote][p][bold]Roginthesouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lambertt[/bold] wrote: As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities.[/p][/quote]Well don't drive at 35mph in a 30 mph limit then. We can do without visitors to Bournemouth exceeding legal speed limits, although your financial contribution is much appreciated.[/p][/quote]no interest in road safety then? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

8:14pm Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

Roginthesouth wrote:
Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.
Dorset Police / Dorset Road Unsafe don't take any notice of the public. They carry on doing what they want regardless. That's why the roads are becoming more dangerous
[quote][p][bold]Roginthesouth[/bold] wrote: Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.[/p][/quote]Dorset Police / Dorset Road Unsafe don't take any notice of the public. They carry on doing what they want regardless. That's why the roads are becoming more dangerous dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

8:23pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Roginthesouth says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Roginthesouth wrote:
Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.
Dorset Police / Dorset Road Unsafe don't take any notice of the public. They carry on doing what they want regardless. That's why the roads are becoming more dangerous
Well, if the comments on this report are representative of the general
public, (which they are not) then we have a real problem , And that problem will effect all road users and pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Roginthesouth[/bold] wrote: Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.[/p][/quote]Dorset Police / Dorset Road Unsafe don't take any notice of the public. They carry on doing what they want regardless. That's why the roads are becoming more dangerous[/p][/quote]Well, if the comments on this report are representative of the general public, (which they are not) then we have a real problem , And that problem will effect all road users and pedestrians. Roginthesouth
  • Score: -3

8:47pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Argonaut says...

lambertt wrote:
As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities.
It's Dorset's way of welcoming visitors.
[quote][p][bold]lambertt[/bold] wrote: As a visitor to the area I was caught doing 35 mph in a 30mph limit by Dorset police. OK it's against the law, but the camera van was parked illegally on the pavement, blocking pedestrians and my view of the road....much worse and more dangerous. This is simply money making by Dorset authorities.[/p][/quote]It's Dorset's way of welcoming visitors. Argonaut
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

Roginthesouth wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Roginthesouth wrote:
Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.
Dorset Police / Dorset Road Unsafe don't take any notice of the public. They carry on doing what they want regardless. That's why the roads are becoming more dangerous
Well, if the comments on this report are representative of the general
public, (which they are not) then we have a real problem , And that problem will effect all road users and pedestrians.
They most certainly are representative of the general public, if you are inn any doubt then check the national article:

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2573828/Police-speed
-traps-like-death-tr
aps-according-campai
gn-group-say-officer
s-parking-busy-roads
ides-verges-putting-
drivers-lives-risk.h
tml

The only ones who have a problem are those who are continuing to act against the public interest and wishes
[quote][p][bold]Roginthesouth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Roginthesouth[/bold] wrote: Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.[/p][/quote]Dorset Police / Dorset Road Unsafe don't take any notice of the public. They carry on doing what they want regardless. That's why the roads are becoming more dangerous[/p][/quote]Well, if the comments on this report are representative of the general public, (which they are not) then we have a real problem , And that problem will effect all road users and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]They most certainly are representative of the general public, if you are inn any doubt then check the national article: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2573828/Police-speed -traps-like-death-tr aps-according-campai gn-group-say-officer s-parking-busy-roads ides-verges-putting- drivers-lives-risk.h tml The only ones who have a problem are those who are continuing to act against the public interest and wishes dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

10:05pm Fri 7 Mar 14

rayc says...

Roginthesouth wrote:
Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.
I thought that Dorset Roadsafe and the Police claim that due to their activities the roads are becoming safer year by year. We have had over a decade of camera based enforcement don't say that has been a waste of effort. Is there anything other than exceeding the speed limit that is causing the roads to become more dangerous in Bournemouth both for law abiding motorists and cyclists? If so then you will be disappointed to find there is very little being done to tackle it. Why is that.?
Dorsetspeed and many others who disagree with Dorset Roadsafe activities believe that camera enforcement has led to a drastic drop in Traffic Officer numbers.The main emphasis is now on enforcing the easily detected rather than the most dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]Roginthesouth[/bold] wrote: Wow, with the number of anti-speed camera comments and negatives to any comments supporting them, it's not suprising the roads are becoming more dangerous in the Bournemouth area, both for law abiding motorists and cyclists.[/p][/quote]I thought that Dorset Roadsafe and the Police claim that due to their activities the roads are becoming safer year by year. We have had over a decade of camera based enforcement don't say that has been a waste of effort. Is there anything other than exceeding the speed limit that is causing the roads to become more dangerous in Bournemouth both for law abiding motorists and cyclists? If so then you will be disappointed to find there is very little being done to tackle it. Why is that.? Dorsetspeed and many others who disagree with Dorset Roadsafe activities believe that camera enforcement has led to a drastic drop in Traffic Officer numbers.The main emphasis is now on enforcing the easily detected rather than the most dangerous. rayc
  • Score: 6

10:57pm Fri 7 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

ItsNotRocketScience wrote:
ItsNotRocketScience wrote:
How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them). "...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road." Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...) Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014.
Meaningless data collected by someone who knows everything about black boxes but nothing about how roads operate.

The reason why there is this difference is basically down to traffic speeds and road users.

70mph roads implies motorways or high speed dual carriageways. Most junctions are segregated, all the traffic is going in one direction (hopefully) at more or less the same speed and joins the main road via slip roads where they can build up speed first. Traffic is entirely motorised i.e. no pedestrians or cyclists. There are lots of crash barriers and other safety features to catch errant vehicles and keep them away from the other carriageway.

40mph road s are more likely to be in built up areas, have priority give way T-junctions or roundabouts - lots of opportunities for cars to have crashes when turning right - plus there will be vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians in the mix to consider, as well as vehicles travelling at significantly different speeds.

You only have to look at the news headlines when a vehicle crosses the central reservation on a motorway and causes carnage by hitting oncoming traffic, or when there is an incident in thick fog to realise why these faster roads are 'safer' the majority of the time but deadly when something goes wrong.


Meaningless? On what basis? 764 million miles of data taken every few seconds not sufficient for you? I assume your statement “knows…nothing about how roads operate” is an error because roads don’t actually do anything – they are static – it is the vehicles that move.

This proves that the argument that higher speed = higher risk is fundamentally flawed. Equally your argument about the makeup of roads actually supports my stance that it is perfectly safe to drive along the stretch of road in question at 70mph as it is a divided highway, no pedestrians, no cyclists etc.

Another fact for you – when this road had a 70 mph speed limit the Police issued zero speeding tickets because no speed limit enforcement was undertaken because it was not deemed necessary (and it has never been an accident black spot).

However since the limit was reduced well below its safe engineered speed, suddenly it has become a safety concern so it now hides camera vans to protect us all from ourselves as now it is a source of danger. Curiously, accident rates don’t shoot up when no cameras are being used on this stretch of road...

This is nothing to do with safety – it’s about money.
Yes it is meaningless data. And you know full well what I mean by 'how roads operate'. The reason why you can't compare the Dorset Way with motorways is that there are substandard slip roads, no hard shoulders etc... And how do you know the Police didn't enforce this road beforehand or it wasn't an accident black spot!
[quote][p][bold]ItsNotRocketScience[/bold] wrote: ItsNotRocketScience wrote: How about some actual hard data to really confuse Dorset RoadXXXX (sorry I just can't use the word "safe" to describe them). "...New telematics data collected from thousands of drivers has revealed that crashes are 11 times more likely to happen on a 40mph road than a 70mph road." Its sample size is a mere 170,000 drivers covering a distance of 764 million miles over 5 years so Dorset RoadXXXX will probably just dismiss it and instead rely on their own "data" (which they then refuse to provide to Freedom on Information requests...) Quoted by Wunelli who are a specialist provider of black box solutions to the Insurance industry. This is posted on their website in an article published on 4th February 2014. Meaningless data collected by someone who knows everything about black boxes but nothing about how roads operate. The reason why there is this difference is basically down to traffic speeds and road users. 70mph roads implies motorways or high speed dual carriageways. Most junctions are segregated, all the traffic is going in one direction (hopefully) at more or less the same speed and joins the main road via slip roads where they can build up speed first. Traffic is entirely motorised i.e. no pedestrians or cyclists. There are lots of crash barriers and other safety features to catch errant vehicles and keep them away from the other carriageway. 40mph road s are more likely to be in built up areas, have priority give way T-junctions or roundabouts - lots of opportunities for cars to have crashes when turning right - plus there will be vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians in the mix to consider, as well as vehicles travelling at significantly different speeds. You only have to look at the news headlines when a vehicle crosses the central reservation on a motorway and causes carnage by hitting oncoming traffic, or when there is an incident in thick fog to realise why these faster roads are 'safer' the majority of the time but deadly when something goes wrong. Meaningless? On what basis? 764 million miles of data taken every few seconds not sufficient for you? I assume your statement “knows…nothing about how roads operate” is an error because roads don’t actually do anything – they are static – it is the vehicles that move. This proves that the argument that higher speed = higher risk is fundamentally flawed. Equally your argument about the makeup of roads actually supports my stance that it is perfectly safe to drive along the stretch of road in question at 70mph as it is a divided highway, no pedestrians, no cyclists etc. Another fact for you – when this road had a 70 mph speed limit the Police issued zero speeding tickets because no speed limit enforcement was undertaken because it was not deemed necessary (and it has never been an accident black spot). However since the limit was reduced well below its safe engineered speed, suddenly it has become a safety concern so it now hides camera vans to protect us all from ourselves as now it is a source of danger. Curiously, accident rates don’t shoot up when no cameras are being used on this stretch of road... This is nothing to do with safety – it’s about money.[/p][/quote]Yes it is meaningless data. And you know full well what I mean by 'how roads operate'. The reason why you can't compare the Dorset Way with motorways is that there are substandard slip roads, no hard shoulders etc... And how do you know the Police didn't enforce this road beforehand or it wasn't an accident black spot! tbpoole
  • Score: -5

11:05pm Fri 7 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, in response to your last message, check the Dorset Road Unsafe statistics, you will see zero nips before 2011, and certainly not enough casualties for any reduction to have any confidence.

http://www.dorsetroa
dsafe.org.uk/images/
Documents/SiteStats2
012-13/MobileCams/M%
20A3049%20Dorset%20W
ay%20Poole%20N%20S%2
0709%20710.pdf

http://www.dorsetroa
dsafe.org.uk/images/
Documents/SiteStats2
012-13/MobileCams/M%
20A3049%20Dorset%20W
ay%20Holes%20Bay%20t
o%20Tower%20Pk%20E%2
0W%20919%20920.pdf
tbpoole, in response to your last message, check the Dorset Road Unsafe statistics, you will see zero nips before 2011, and certainly not enough casualties for any reduction to have any confidence. http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/SiteStats2 012-13/MobileCams/M% 20A3049%20Dorset%20W ay%20Poole%20N%20S%2 0709%20710.pdf http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/SiteStats2 012-13/MobileCams/M% 20A3049%20Dorset%20W ay%20Holes%20Bay%20t o%20Tower%20Pk%20E%2 0W%20919%20920.pdf dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

11:21pm Fri 7 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, An experienced driver learns over time instinctively where real risks come from. A parked vehicle to the side of the road cannot suddenly move sideways. Speed camera vans cause the unique situation of panic braking the instant they are spotted even thought there may be no chance whatsoever of a collision. This is completely different.

Yes you are quite right, it's not just speed cameras people now panic brake for, it's anything that even looks like one. That's even worse.

See if you can work out from the extract below if the crash would have happened without the camera:

"PC Hayward added: “When the excess speed is considered, along with the presence of the road safety camera van, it’s very likely he has observed the van and tried to reduce his speed rapidly.”

Recording the verdict that Mr Rowsell’s death was due to a road accident, district coroner Sheriff Payne said: “I can only conclude that he has in response to the presence of the safety van.

No other person or vehicle was involved.”
A parked vehicle can easily quite suddenly pull out into traffic without warning. Whatever may cause you to brake suddenly, be it a car slowing in front of vehicle changing lanes, if you are travelling too fast you have less time to react. If you are travelling too close as well then it is likely to result in a shunt or if on a bike loss of control due to rapid deceleration. That is purely the fault of the driver/rider who is going too fast/ too close, as you will know if you have anything to do with insurance claims. Police cars and motorway patrol vehicles have had these markings on for decades, people have always tended to slow down to the limit when passing them on the motorways in case they are police so it is not a new phenomenon.

If the rider had to decelerate rapidly then quite clearly it was his speed that was the greatest contributory factor and the secondary factor was possibly the van. Millions of other vehicles manage to pass these vans without incident but you want to ban them all because of a one in a million chance event.

Following that logic we should ban all street lights next to roads because of the chance of serious injury in a collision, cut down all trees next to the highway and so on.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, An experienced driver learns over time instinctively where real risks come from. A parked vehicle to the side of the road cannot suddenly move sideways. Speed camera vans cause the unique situation of panic braking the instant they are spotted even thought there may be no chance whatsoever of a collision. This is completely different. Yes you are quite right, it's not just speed cameras people now panic brake for, it's anything that even looks like one. That's even worse. See if you can work out from the extract below if the crash would have happened without the camera: "PC Hayward added: “When the excess speed is considered, along with the presence of the road safety camera van, it’s very likely he has observed the van and tried to reduce his speed rapidly.” Recording the verdict that Mr Rowsell’s death was due to a road accident, district coroner Sheriff Payne said: “I can only conclude that he has [braked] in response to the presence of the safety van. No other person or vehicle was involved.”[/p][/quote]A parked vehicle can easily quite suddenly pull out into traffic without warning. Whatever may cause you to brake suddenly, be it a car slowing in front of vehicle changing lanes, if you are travelling too fast you have less time to react. If you are travelling too close as well then it is likely to result in a shunt or if on a bike loss of control due to rapid deceleration. That is purely the fault of the driver/rider who is going too fast/ too close, as you will know if you have anything to do with insurance claims. Police cars and motorway patrol vehicles have had these markings on for decades, people have always tended to slow down to the limit when passing them on the motorways in case they are police so it is not a new phenomenon. If the rider had to decelerate rapidly then quite clearly it was his speed that was the greatest contributory factor and the secondary factor was possibly the van. Millions of other vehicles manage to pass these vans without incident but you want to ban them all because of a one in a million chance event. Following that logic we should ban all street lights next to roads because of the chance of serious injury in a collision, cut down all trees next to the highway and so on. tbpoole
  • Score: -6

11:26pm Fri 7 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, in response to your last message, check the Dorset Road Unsafe statistics, you will see zero nips before 2011, and certainly not enough casualties for any reduction to have any confidence.

http://www.dorsetroa

dsafe.org.uk/images/

Documents/SiteStats2

012-13/MobileCams/M%

20A3049%20Dorset%20W

ay%20Poole%20N%20S%2

0709%20710.pdf

http://www.dorsetroa

dsafe.org.uk/images/

Documents/SiteStats2

012-13/MobileCams/M%

20A3049%20Dorset%20W

ay%20Holes%20Bay%20t

o%20Tower%20Pk%20E%2

0W%20919%20920.pdf
I'm not necessarily talking about mobile camera van tickets. There could well have been tickets issued by police patrols prior to this which probably wouldn't feature here.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, in response to your last message, check the Dorset Road Unsafe statistics, you will see zero nips before 2011, and certainly not enough casualties for any reduction to have any confidence. http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/SiteStats2 012-13/MobileCams/M% 20A3049%20Dorset%20W ay%20Poole%20N%20S%2 0709%20710.pdf http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/images/ Documents/SiteStats2 012-13/MobileCams/M% 20A3049%20Dorset%20W ay%20Holes%20Bay%20t o%20Tower%20Pk%20E%2 0W%20919%20920.pdf[/p][/quote]I'm not necessarily talking about mobile camera van tickets. There could well have been tickets issued by police patrols prior to this which probably wouldn't feature here. tbpoole
  • Score: -4

8:08am Sat 8 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
One final comment; this from the DfT Think! Website:

"Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents.
In 2011, 3,267 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor.
The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph.
Fatal accidents are four times as likely on rural roads as urban roads"

That is why it is important to drive within the limit in the conurbation. It's not just the car drivers cocooned in their steel shell we need to think about, it's the vulnerable motorbike riders, pedestrians and cyclists as well.

It wasn't the car driver injured when there were fatals recently on Herbert Avenue and so on.

Dorsetspleen just tries to convince everyone that it doesn't matter about these sorts of incidents and that drivers should be free to decide for themselves what speeds to drive at because he doesn't agree with the way things work now. The consequences are potentially fatal.

Well he is wrong and in so many ways and it is time he finally put a stop to the sort of rubbish he keeps posting on the Echo website and his own pages.
Good tbpoole, one of those infrequent occasions where you offer some data. Unfortunately it is a little narrow minded:

"Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents.” A bit misleading. SPEED includes both “travelling too fast for conditions” (i.e. within the limit) (12% fatals, 8%KSI) and “exceeding speed limit” (13% fatals, 6%KSI) (UK, 2011).

The obsession with driving within the limit could help with reducing “Exceeding the limit” but is not likely to improve “travelling too fast for conditions”, indeed it might make those within the limit more complacent.
So it seems that if you kill someone by driving at an inappropriate speed, you are just as likely to be below the limit as above it!! A bet that would surprise many. Just shows that that number in the circle isn’t quite the magical solution many think it is. Perhaps we should be promoting the idea of drivers being responsible and looking for hazards, not just looking at the speedo.

Also, the speed is usually only one factor where others can include drink, racing, vehicle theft, etc to which the speed would be secondary and of no concern to the driver and therefore no benefit in limit or enforcement in these most serious cases. And a serious injury can be as bad as a death.
So the main thing we should consider is that speeding is only a factor in only 7% of KSIs. This can hardly be considered a “main factor”
When I am vulnerable as a pedestrian or cyclist I far prefer to be among drivers who are looking out for me and slowing right down when they see me than blindly following the limit, even if they are going faster further up the road.

Of course speeding deaths matter. But as we have discussed before, the actions of Dorset Police simply don’t seem to be reducing road deaths, and it’s not surprising. As I am independent and free from financial or political motivations I can see the bigger picture. Putting all the effort into something that could at the most only reduce KSIs by some probably small proportion of 7% and ignoring simple things such as driver error, a factor in an astonishing 65% of KSIs, is like equipping ships with parachutes instead of lifeboats because someone got killed hitting the water.

I’m asking for proper policing, the equivalent of lifeboats on ships, and a part of proper policing is demonstrating that at least some thought has gone into choosing the best safety solutions – and Dorset Police don’t seem to be capable of doing even this.

And the only objections seem to be from what is a real minority who say the equivalent of “try telling Fred Bloggs family we should have lifeboats instead of parachutes on ships who got killed when he hit the water jumping off a ship”. If it were not for the obvious financial motivations it would be incredible.
It is not narrow minded it is factual data from the DfT, not made up or anecdotal like most of the stuff on your propaganda website.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: One final comment; this from the DfT Think! Website: "Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents. In 2011, 3,267 people were killed or seriously injured in crashes where speed was a factor. The risk of death is approximately four times higher when a pedestrian is hit at 40mph than at 30mph. Fatal accidents are four times as likely on rural roads as urban roads" That is why it is important to drive within the limit in the conurbation. It's not just the car drivers cocooned in their steel shell we need to think about, it's the vulnerable motorbike riders, pedestrians and cyclists as well. It wasn't the car driver injured when there were fatals recently on Herbert Avenue and so on. Dorsetspleen just tries to convince everyone that it doesn't matter about these sorts of incidents and that drivers should be free to decide for themselves what speeds to drive at because he doesn't agree with the way things work now. The consequences are potentially fatal. Well he is wrong and in so many ways and it is time he finally put a stop to the sort of rubbish he keeps posting on the Echo website and his own pages.[/p][/quote]Good tbpoole, one of those infrequent occasions where you offer some data. Unfortunately it is a little narrow minded: "Speed is one of the main factors in fatal road accidents.” A bit misleading. SPEED includes both “travelling too fast for conditions” (i.e. within the limit) (12% fatals, 8%KSI) and “exceeding speed limit” (13% fatals, 6%KSI) (UK, 2011). The obsession with driving within the limit could help with reducing “Exceeding the limit” but is not likely to improve “travelling too fast for conditions”, indeed it might make those within the limit more complacent. So it seems that if you kill someone by driving at an inappropriate speed, you are just as likely to be below the limit as above it!! A bet that would surprise many. Just shows that that number in the circle isn’t quite the magical solution many think it is. Perhaps we should be promoting the idea of drivers being responsible and looking for hazards, not just looking at the speedo. Also, the speed is usually only one factor where others can include drink, racing, vehicle theft, etc to which the speed would be secondary and of no concern to the driver and therefore no benefit in limit or enforcement in these most serious cases. And a serious injury can be as bad as a death. So the main thing we should consider is that speeding is only a factor in only 7% of KSIs. This can hardly be considered a “main factor” When I am vulnerable as a pedestrian or cyclist I far prefer to be among drivers who are looking out for me and slowing right down when they see me than blindly following the limit, even if they are going faster further up the road. Of course speeding deaths matter. But as we have discussed before, the actions of Dorset Police simply don’t seem to be reducing road deaths, and it’s not surprising. As I am independent and free from financial or political motivations I can see the bigger picture. Putting all the effort into something that could at the most only reduce KSIs by some probably small proportion of 7% and ignoring simple things such as driver error, a factor in an astonishing 65% of KSIs, is like equipping ships with parachutes instead of lifeboats because someone got killed hitting the water. I’m asking for proper policing, the equivalent of lifeboats on ships, and a part of proper policing is demonstrating that at least some thought has gone into choosing the best safety solutions – and Dorset Police don’t seem to be capable of doing even this. And the only objections seem to be from what is a real minority who say the equivalent of “try telling Fred Bloggs family we should have lifeboats instead of parachutes on ships who got killed when he hit the water jumping off a ship”. If it were not for the obvious financial motivations it would be incredible.[/p][/quote]It is not narrow minded it is factual data from the DfT, not made up or anecdotal like most of the stuff on your propaganda website. tbpoole
  • Score: -5

8:35am Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, An experienced driver learns over time instinctively where real risks come from. A parked vehicle to the side of the road cannot suddenly move sideways. Speed camera vans cause the unique situation of panic braking the instant they are spotted even thought there may be no chance whatsoever of a collision. This is completely different.

Yes you are quite right, it's not just speed cameras people now panic brake for, it's anything that even looks like one. That's even worse.

See if you can work out from the extract below if the crash would have happened without the camera:

"PC Hayward added: “When the excess speed is considered, along with the presence of the road safety camera van, it’s very likely he has observed the van and tried to reduce his speed rapidly.”

Recording the verdict that Mr Rowsell’s death was due to a road accident, district coroner Sheriff Payne said: “I can only conclude that he has in response to the presence of the safety van.

No other person or vehicle was involved.”
A parked vehicle can easily quite suddenly pull out into traffic without warning. Whatever may cause you to brake suddenly, be it a car slowing in front of vehicle changing lanes, if you are travelling too fast you have less time to react. If you are travelling too close as well then it is likely to result in a shunt or if on a bike loss of control due to rapid deceleration. That is purely the fault of the driver/rider who is going too fast/ too close, as you will know if you have anything to do with insurance claims. Police cars and motorway patrol vehicles have had these markings on for decades, people have always tended to slow down to the limit when passing them on the motorways in case they are police so it is not a new phenomenon.

If the rider had to decelerate rapidly then quite clearly it was his speed that was the greatest contributory factor and the secondary factor was possibly the van. Millions of other vehicles manage to pass these vans without incident but you want to ban them all because of a one in a million chance event.

Following that logic we should ban all street lights next to roads because of the chance of serious injury in a collision, cut down all trees next to the highway and so on.
You are getting increasingly ridiculous and desperate again.A speed camera van can trigger panic braking the instant it is spotted even if it is 1/4 mile away or on a different road. This is obviously entirely different to the business of interacting with normal nearby moving traffic. And it's irrelevant anyway, yes something else might have killed him but it didn't. It was a combination of his speed (probably) and an adverse reaction to seeing the camera (certainly).

Of course police presence on the roads is not new, but the obsessive over enforcement of limits that have been reduced far below even average speeds to make money, in conflict with common sense, objections and dft guidance is.

Anyway I am pleased to see that you acknowledge that the speed camera van was a factor in this death. Road deaths often result from a freak combination of a number of factors and if you remove any one of them you dramatically reduce the probability and severity of the outcome. Another factor for example might have been lack of anti-lock brakes.

I have never said I want speed cameras banned. I wan the use of them to make money particularly where the negative safety effects outweigh any possible positive banned.

And I simply want the risks, which you agree exist, to be properly accounted for, a basic requirement for any kind of safety activity. When I enquired into this after the death I was expecting a professional response such as "Here is a list of the positive and negative effects of speed cameras. It includes such things as driver distraction and panic braking which can cause accidents injuries and deaths but the estimated safety benefit, a small percentage of 7% in an insignificant proportion of road space is calculated to exceed the risks as follows ..."

However, Dorset Police comprehensively swept the whole issue under the carpet. They refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor when the correct answer was at least 1, by saying that they had "no records", Incredible. They actually told me that they would refuse to listen to the safety concerns even of camera operators and consider them only as "speculation" Incredible. They have never even ever tried to put forward a safety justification / estimate for what they do. Incredible. And even after this death they have continued with increasingly dangerous and obstructive mobile camera van placements while the £millions roll in. Incredible ......

And on your other point, of course the police will occasionally detect offences all over the place. That's completely different to sitting in a van on a perfectly good dual carriageway making money where some bureaucrat in a council office, not a safety professional, has set the limit 20% below even average speeds.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, An experienced driver learns over time instinctively where real risks come from. A parked vehicle to the side of the road cannot suddenly move sideways. Speed camera vans cause the unique situation of panic braking the instant they are spotted even thought there may be no chance whatsoever of a collision. This is completely different. Yes you are quite right, it's not just speed cameras people now panic brake for, it's anything that even looks like one. That's even worse. See if you can work out from the extract below if the crash would have happened without the camera: "PC Hayward added: “When the excess speed is considered, along with the presence of the road safety camera van, it’s very likely he has observed the van and tried to reduce his speed rapidly.” Recording the verdict that Mr Rowsell’s death was due to a road accident, district coroner Sheriff Payne said: “I can only conclude that he has [braked] in response to the presence of the safety van. No other person or vehicle was involved.”[/p][/quote]A parked vehicle can easily quite suddenly pull out into traffic without warning. Whatever may cause you to brake suddenly, be it a car slowing in front of vehicle changing lanes, if you are travelling too fast you have less time to react. If you are travelling too close as well then it is likely to result in a shunt or if on a bike loss of control due to rapid deceleration. That is purely the fault of the driver/rider who is going too fast/ too close, as you will know if you have anything to do with insurance claims. Police cars and motorway patrol vehicles have had these markings on for decades, people have always tended to slow down to the limit when passing them on the motorways in case they are police so it is not a new phenomenon. If the rider had to decelerate rapidly then quite clearly it was his speed that was the greatest contributory factor and the secondary factor was possibly the van. Millions of other vehicles manage to pass these vans without incident but you want to ban them all because of a one in a million chance event. Following that logic we should ban all street lights next to roads because of the chance of serious injury in a collision, cut down all trees next to the highway and so on.[/p][/quote]You are getting increasingly ridiculous and desperate again.A speed camera van can trigger panic braking the instant it is spotted even if it is 1/4 mile away or on a different road. This is obviously entirely different to the business of interacting with normal nearby moving traffic. And it's irrelevant anyway, yes something else might have killed him but it didn't. It was a combination of his speed (probably) and an adverse reaction to seeing the camera (certainly). Of course police presence on the roads is not new, but the obsessive over enforcement of limits that have been reduced far below even average speeds to make money, in conflict with common sense, objections and dft guidance is. Anyway I am pleased to see that you acknowledge that the speed camera van was a factor in this death. Road deaths often result from a freak combination of a number of factors and if you remove any one of them you dramatically reduce the probability and severity of the outcome. Another factor for example might have been lack of anti-lock brakes. I have never said I want speed cameras banned. I wan the use of them to make money particularly where the negative safety effects outweigh any possible positive banned. And I simply want the risks, which you agree exist, to be properly accounted for, a basic requirement for any kind of safety activity. When I enquired into this after the death I was expecting a professional response such as "Here is a list of the positive and negative effects of speed cameras. It includes such things as driver distraction and panic braking which can cause accidents injuries and deaths but the estimated safety benefit, a small percentage of 7% in an insignificant proportion of road space is calculated to exceed the risks as follows ..." However, Dorset Police comprehensively swept the whole issue under the carpet. They refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor when the correct answer was at least 1, by saying that they had "no records", Incredible. They actually told me that they would refuse to listen to the safety concerns even of camera operators and consider them only as "speculation" Incredible. They have never even ever tried to put forward a safety justification / estimate for what they do. Incredible. And even after this death they have continued with increasingly dangerous and obstructive mobile camera van placements while the £millions roll in. Incredible ...... And on your other point, of course the police will occasionally detect offences all over the place. That's completely different to sitting in a van on a perfectly good dual carriageway making money where some bureaucrat in a council office, not a safety professional, has set the limit 20% below even average speeds. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

8:42am Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, "It is not narrow minded it is factual data from the DfT, not made up or anecdotal like most of the stuff on your propaganda website."

Factual data like the propaganda seen on many "safety" partnership websites, such as "casualties reduce at camera sites by 70%"? A partial truth can fulfil the intent to deceive as good as a lie.

Of course it is factual data, but is has to be put in the context of the bigger picture as I have done.

You are descending into futile arguing again which I don't have a lot of time for but I will say again that I am entirely happy to debate any actual points I have ever made that appear incorrect, if you can detail them.
tbpoole, "It is not narrow minded it is factual data from the DfT, not made up or anecdotal like most of the stuff on your propaganda website." Factual data like the propaganda seen on many "safety" partnership websites, such as "casualties reduce at camera sites by 70%"? A partial truth can fulfil the intent to deceive as good as a lie. Of course it is factual data, but is has to be put in the context of the bigger picture as I have done. You are descending into futile arguing again which I don't have a lot of time for but I will say again that I am entirely happy to debate any actual points I have ever made that appear incorrect, if you can detail them. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 7

9:18am Sat 8 Mar 14

rayc says...

The front page of the Echo on 22 August 2013 was completely given over to an article headed "Police chief calls top-level meeting on highway safety after 18 deaths on Dorset's roads this year".
"Martyn Underhill has called a meeting on September 22 to potentially rewrite the road safety strategy to address the number of serious and fatal accidents. “We need to change our focus and that’s why I have called a seminar in September to bring all the partners around the table to review the strategy for keeping people safe on the roads. “I can find no evidence to suggest it is linked to the reduction in traffic officers but it is clear there is potentially a rise in the number of people being killed or seriously injured on our roads."

Does anyone have a copy of the report from the seminar? What new initiatives were introduced to address the number of serious and fatal accidents? The supporters of Dorset Roadsafe can bluster all they like but it is clear that their strategy has failed in reducing KSI's and I believe they have contributed to the current year on year increase in them. A failed policy but it keeps the attendance at Driver Awareness Courses on budget.
http://www.dorsetech
o.co.uk/news/1062661
0.Police_chief_calls
_top_level_meeting_o
n_highway_safety_aft
er_18_deaths_on_Dors
et_s_roads_this_year
/?ref=rc
The front page of the Echo on 22 August 2013 was completely given over to an article headed "Police chief calls top-level meeting on highway safety after 18 deaths on Dorset's roads this year". "Martyn Underhill has called a meeting on September 22 to potentially rewrite the road safety strategy to address the number of serious and fatal accidents. “We need to change our focus and that’s why I have called a seminar in September to bring all the partners around the table to review the strategy for keeping people safe on the roads. “I can find no evidence to suggest it is linked to the reduction in traffic officers but it is clear there is potentially a rise in the number of people being killed or seriously injured on our roads." Does anyone have a copy of the report from the seminar? What new initiatives were introduced to address the number of serious and fatal accidents? The supporters of Dorset Roadsafe can bluster all they like but it is clear that their strategy has failed in reducing KSI's and I believe they have contributed to the current year on year increase in them. A failed policy but it keeps the attendance at Driver Awareness Courses on budget. http://www.dorsetech o.co.uk/news/1062661 0.Police_chief_calls _top_level_meeting_o n_highway_safety_aft er_18_deaths_on_Dors et_s_roads_this_year /?ref=rc rayc
  • Score: 4

10:12am Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

rayc wrote:
The front page of the Echo on 22 August 2013 was completely given over to an article headed "Police chief calls top-level meeting on highway safety after 18 deaths on Dorset's roads this year".
"Martyn Underhill has called a meeting on September 22 to potentially rewrite the road safety strategy to address the number of serious and fatal accidents. “We need to change our focus and that’s why I have called a seminar in September to bring all the partners around the table to review the strategy for keeping people safe on the roads. “I can find no evidence to suggest it is linked to the reduction in traffic officers but it is clear there is potentially a rise in the number of people being killed or seriously injured on our roads."

Does anyone have a copy of the report from the seminar? What new initiatives were introduced to address the number of serious and fatal accidents? The supporters of Dorset Roadsafe can bluster all they like but it is clear that their strategy has failed in reducing KSI's and I believe they have contributed to the current year on year increase in them. A failed policy but it keeps the attendance at Driver Awareness Courses on budget.
http://www.dorsetech

o.co.uk/news/1062661

0.Police_chief_calls

_top_level_meeting_o

n_highway_safety_aft

er_18_deaths_on_Dors

et_s_roads_this_year

/?ref=rc
I am still giving the PCC the benefit of the doubt but this is wearing thin, the test will be soon when my IPCC case against Dorset Police concludes which should be next week, he said he would meet with me after that.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: The front page of the Echo on 22 August 2013 was completely given over to an article headed "Police chief calls top-level meeting on highway safety after 18 deaths on Dorset's roads this year". "Martyn Underhill has called a meeting on September 22 to potentially rewrite the road safety strategy to address the number of serious and fatal accidents. “We need to change our focus and that’s why I have called a seminar in September to bring all the partners around the table to review the strategy for keeping people safe on the roads. “I can find no evidence to suggest it is linked to the reduction in traffic officers but it is clear there is potentially a rise in the number of people being killed or seriously injured on our roads." Does anyone have a copy of the report from the seminar? What new initiatives were introduced to address the number of serious and fatal accidents? The supporters of Dorset Roadsafe can bluster all they like but it is clear that their strategy has failed in reducing KSI's and I believe they have contributed to the current year on year increase in them. A failed policy but it keeps the attendance at Driver Awareness Courses on budget. http://www.dorsetech o.co.uk/news/1062661 0.Police_chief_calls _top_level_meeting_o n_highway_safety_aft er_18_deaths_on_Dors et_s_roads_this_year /?ref=rc[/p][/quote]I am still giving the PCC the benefit of the doubt but this is wearing thin, the test will be soon when my IPCC case against Dorset Police concludes which should be next week, he said he would meet with me after that. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

4:00pm Sat 8 Mar 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested.
Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country .
So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...
you are obviously the idiot,this is not about speeding it is about the unsafe and unethical way they police it!
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed and there idiot followers, posters and hangers on would do well to recognise the fact that it is the very people they despise that allow them in this democratic society to carry on with their website unmolested. Because I can assure you there are a bunch of grieving widows, widowers, sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who would like to take issue with your desire for a "Free for all" when it comes to the speed cars and motorcycles are allowed to travel. It is an indisputable fact that speed kills, no mater what silly argument you come up with if cars and bikes only did 20 mph the the death rate on out roads would drop damaticly, if the drives and rider are allowed to do 100mph the rate would sore to an rate that would not be acceptable in any civilised country . So it should be somewhere in between and law are needed to keep it somewhere in between so why no accept that and embrace the police who are trying to save your life and everyone else's often at risking their own...[/p][/quote]you are obviously the idiot,this is not about speeding it is about the unsafe and unethical way they police it! thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 4

4:05pm Sat 8 Mar 14

FNS-man says...

Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.
Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again. FNS-man
  • Score: -4

4:06pm Sat 8 Mar 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

tbpoole wrote:
pcpete wrote:
If anyone is interested in a few facts, here are a few:
Dorset Road Safe (DRS) staff are not police officers;
DRS operates a caught, no excuse policy but they excuse their own offences and misconduct. Police, fire and ambulance vehicles flashed by speed cameras are excused irrespective of being on emergency calls AND FOREIGN vehicles are excused simply because it may be costly to process them.
As partners in DRS, Highways Agency have the legal power to set speed limits but that power is supposed to be exercised on strict criteria including KSI rates. They simply do not comform.
The courts, CPS and local authorities are also partners. The latter contribute tax revenue to DRS.
And a few comments: Dorsetspeed is the messenger - don't shoot him and he does not deserve the reaction and abuse of some posters here. Do not expect anything from the supposedly independent police commissioner who simply accepts the police account. What is needed is for those who witness crass offending by DRS staff to report the offences, yes to the police, and be prepared to complain if they do not deal with the offence properly and then to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission if not satisfied. I have more if you want it.
Simply wrong and misleading on so many counts.
tbpoole you are really the worst kind of troll
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pcpete[/bold] wrote: If anyone is interested in a few facts, here are a few: Dorset Road Safe (DRS) staff are not police officers; DRS operates a caught, no excuse policy but they excuse their own offences and misconduct. Police, fire and ambulance vehicles flashed by speed cameras are excused irrespective of being on emergency calls AND FOREIGN vehicles are excused simply because it may be costly to process them. As partners in DRS, Highways Agency have the legal power to set speed limits but that power is supposed to be exercised on strict criteria including KSI rates. They simply do not comform. The courts, CPS and local authorities are also partners. The latter contribute tax revenue to DRS. And a few comments: Dorsetspeed is the messenger - don't shoot him and he does not deserve the reaction and abuse of some posters here. Do not expect anything from the supposedly independent police commissioner who simply accepts the police account. What is needed is for those who witness crass offending by DRS staff to report the offences, yes to the police, and be prepared to complain if they do not deal with the offence properly and then to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission if not satisfied. I have more if you want it.[/p][/quote]Simply wrong and misleading on so many counts.[/p][/quote]tbpoole you are really the worst kind of troll thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 5

4:27pm Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.
Any particular point of mine you disagree with? I can see a handful of people not liking my exposure of this obvious scandal, but none of them seen to be able to come up with any substance, or a single credible challenge to anything I have ever stated
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.[/p][/quote]Any particular point of mine you disagree with? I can see a handful of people not liking my exposure of this obvious scandal, but none of them seen to be able to come up with any substance, or a single credible challenge to anything I have ever stated dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

5:15pm Sat 8 Mar 14

rayc says...

FNS-man wrote:
Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.
Why are you worried about what one person says? The establishment have got all the resources on their side and can manipulate statistics and press releases to prove whatever they wish. The Echo has for years been an unquestioning mouthpiece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda.
With all the presumed support from the motoring public I cannot see why the Police and their associates in Dorset Roadsafe would be worried by him unless what he says is near the truth . I believe that scrutiny of their claims and methods is vital. The Emperors New Clothes get thinner year by year as the KSI statistics are announced.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.[/p][/quote]Why are you worried about what one person says? The establishment have got all the resources on their side and can manipulate statistics and press releases to prove whatever they wish. The Echo has for years been an unquestioning mouthpiece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda. With all the presumed support from the motoring public I cannot see why the Police and their associates in Dorset Roadsafe would be worried by him unless what he says is near the truth . I believe that scrutiny of their claims and methods is vital. The Emperors New Clothes get thinner year by year as the KSI statistics are announced. rayc
  • Score: 4

7:01pm Sat 8 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.
Why are you worried about what one person says? The establishment have got all the resources on their side and can manipulate statistics and press releases to prove whatever they wish. The Echo has for years been an unquestioning mouthpiece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda.
With all the presumed support from the motoring public I cannot see why the Police and their associates in Dorset Roadsafe would be worried by him unless what he says is near the truth . I believe that scrutiny of their claims and methods is vital. The Emperors New Clothes get thinner year by year as the KSI statistics are announced.
We are not worried by what one person says but if what they are saying is morally wrong it shouldn't go unchallenged.

We are worried because by publishing his views the Echo are making dorsetspleen out to be some sort of expert rather than the anti-police campaigner he really is.

Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable.

His behaviour appears to be purely based on gaining personal revenge rather than that of someone public spirited, no doubt motivated by some past conflict or slight involving a motoring offence.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.[/p][/quote]Why are you worried about what one person says? The establishment have got all the resources on their side and can manipulate statistics and press releases to prove whatever they wish. The Echo has for years been an unquestioning mouthpiece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda. With all the presumed support from the motoring public I cannot see why the Police and their associates in Dorset Roadsafe would be worried by him unless what he says is near the truth . I believe that scrutiny of their claims and methods is vital. The Emperors New Clothes get thinner year by year as the KSI statistics are announced.[/p][/quote]We are not worried by what one person says but if what they are saying is morally wrong it shouldn't go unchallenged. We are worried because by publishing his views the Echo are making dorsetspleen out to be some sort of expert rather than the anti-police campaigner he really is. Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable. His behaviour appears to be purely based on gaining personal revenge rather than that of someone public spirited, no doubt motivated by some past conflict or slight involving a motoring offence. tbpoole
  • Score: -4

7:10pm Sat 8 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, "It is not narrow minded it is factual data from the DfT, not made up or anecdotal like most of the stuff on your propaganda website."

Factual data like the propaganda seen on many "safety" partnership websites, such as "casualties reduce at camera sites by 70%"? A partial truth can fulfil the intent to deceive as good as a lie.

Of course it is factual data, but is has to be put in the context of the bigger picture as I have done.

You are descending into futile arguing again which I don't have a lot of time for but I will say again that I am entirely happy to debate any actual points I have ever made that appear incorrect, if you can detail them.
You never fail to descend to the futile and pointless. You obviously have too much time on your hands to spend it writing all this drivel......but then you always have to have the last word so watch this space.......
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, "It is not narrow minded it is factual data from the DfT, not made up or anecdotal like most of the stuff on your propaganda website." Factual data like the propaganda seen on many "safety" partnership websites, such as "casualties reduce at camera sites by 70%"? A partial truth can fulfil the intent to deceive as good as a lie. Of course it is factual data, but is has to be put in the context of the bigger picture as I have done. You are descending into futile arguing again which I don't have a lot of time for but I will say again that I am entirely happy to debate any actual points I have ever made that appear incorrect, if you can detail them.[/p][/quote]You never fail to descend to the futile and pointless. You obviously have too much time on your hands to spend it writing all this drivel......but then you always have to have the last word so watch this space....... tbpoole
  • Score: -5

7:11pm Sat 8 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

retry69 wrote:
Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.
Couldn't agree more.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Mr.Belchamber I find your comments and this article petty and pathetic when there are more important issues regarding motorists safety to be considered but you will have your followers,probably those that are stil bitter and twisted about being caught speeding at one point by one of these cameras.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. tbpoole
  • Score: -5

7:14pm Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.
Why are you worried about what one person says? The establishment have got all the resources on their side and can manipulate statistics and press releases to prove whatever they wish. The Echo has for years been an unquestioning mouthpiece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda.
With all the presumed support from the motoring public I cannot see why the Police and their associates in Dorset Roadsafe would be worried by him unless what he says is near the truth . I believe that scrutiny of their claims and methods is vital. The Emperors New Clothes get thinner year by year as the KSI statistics are announced.
We are not worried by what one person says but if what they are saying is morally wrong it shouldn't go unchallenged.

We are worried because by publishing his views the Echo are making dorsetspleen out to be some sort of expert rather than the anti-police campaigner he really is.

Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable.

His behaviour appears to be purely based on gaining personal revenge rather than that of someone public spirited, no doubt motivated by some past conflict or slight involving a motoring offence.
As I said tbpoole I'm not going down to the level of childish name calling, etc.

AGAIN, Please could you demonstrate anything I have said which is morally incorrect, etc.

I'm just exposing what's there, that automatically means discrediting.

I am a very successful scientist and engineer, my career has been built on being able to see how things work and seeing how they could work better, I have 4 patents to prove it.

My position has built from a very gentle start, asking simple questions of the police and councils, and getting lied to and ignored, The deeper I looked the worse it got.

I have no political or financial interest, I am completely independent.

I have massive support, check the comments and scores in this article and in the daily mail article.

And I think even you will soon see how right I am.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Why did someone give dorsetspeed a platform again? He's a tiresome, tiresome man, not interested in safety but only in one issue again and again.[/p][/quote]Why are you worried about what one person says? The establishment have got all the resources on their side and can manipulate statistics and press releases to prove whatever they wish. The Echo has for years been an unquestioning mouthpiece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda. With all the presumed support from the motoring public I cannot see why the Police and their associates in Dorset Roadsafe would be worried by him unless what he says is near the truth . I believe that scrutiny of their claims and methods is vital. The Emperors New Clothes get thinner year by year as the KSI statistics are announced.[/p][/quote]We are not worried by what one person says but if what they are saying is morally wrong it shouldn't go unchallenged. We are worried because by publishing his views the Echo are making dorsetspleen out to be some sort of expert rather than the anti-police campaigner he really is. Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable. His behaviour appears to be purely based on gaining personal revenge rather than that of someone public spirited, no doubt motivated by some past conflict or slight involving a motoring offence.[/p][/quote]As I said tbpoole I'm not going down to the level of childish name calling, etc. AGAIN, Please could you demonstrate anything I have said which is morally incorrect, etc. I'm just exposing what's there, that automatically means discrediting. I am a very successful scientist and engineer, my career has been built on being able to see how things work and seeing how they could work better, I have 4 patents to prove it. My position has built from a very gentle start, asking simple questions of the police and councils, and getting lied to and ignored, The deeper I looked the worse it got. I have no political or financial interest, I am completely independent. I have massive support, check the comments and scores in this article and in the daily mail article. And I think even you will soon see how right I am. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

8:00pm Sat 8 Mar 14

rayc says...

tbpoole said "Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable."

The Camera Partnerships, including Dorset Roadsafe, do not need any help to discredit their operations. They have managed to do this by themselves ever since hypothecation allowed them to build their empires from the FIxed Penalty Income. Even a Labour Government found their practices so devious that they stopped it with the Penalties going to the Treasury. They have got round that by setting up Driver Awareness Schemes where they keep the profits. They even increased the speed that a motorist could exceed the speed limit before a Fixed Penalty was issued to 10% +9mph to keep the course gravy train running. That is up to 64mph on Dorset Way so it is obviously not considered dangerous but a minor transgression.
tbpoole said "Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable." The Camera Partnerships, including Dorset Roadsafe, do not need any help to discredit their operations. They have managed to do this by themselves ever since hypothecation allowed them to build their empires from the FIxed Penalty Income. Even a Labour Government found their practices so devious that they stopped it with the Penalties going to the Treasury. They have got round that by setting up Driver Awareness Schemes where they keep the profits. They even increased the speed that a motorist could exceed the speed limit before a Fixed Penalty was issued to 10% +9mph to keep the course gravy train running. That is up to 64mph on Dorset Way so it is obviously not considered dangerous but a minor transgression. rayc
  • Score: 5

8:20pm Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

rayc wrote:
tbpoole said "Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable."

The Camera Partnerships, including Dorset Roadsafe, do not need any help to discredit their operations. They have managed to do this by themselves ever since hypothecation allowed them to build their empires from the FIxed Penalty Income. Even a Labour Government found their practices so devious that they stopped it with the Penalties going to the Treasury. They have got round that by setting up Driver Awareness Schemes where they keep the profits. They even increased the speed that a motorist could exceed the speed limit before a Fixed Penalty was issued to 10% +9mph to keep the course gravy train running. That is up to 64mph on Dorset Way so it is obviously not considered dangerous but a minor transgression.
It's even more blatant than that. Listen to Radio Solent Monday morning to find out, I will be on live commenting on the courses. Dorset is the only county that has not signed up the the national scheme. Everywhere else if you get caught, you can attend a course local to your home. Not Dorset. Some drivers are driving many hundreds of miles (putting themselves at risk in the process of course) and even having to take 2 days off work to attend the course.

Not to mention of course that Dorset is still by far the most expensive course (and as I have mentioned, refuse to detail where the money goes, although the top level costs I eventually got indicate waste and / or misrepresentation or fraud on a massive scale).

But then if your motivation was financial, rather than public safety, if you were operating a multi £ million industry at what I estimate to be 700% profit, you wouldn't give that up without a fight would you?

The criteria have been widened to blatantly maximise throughput, for example, on the national course you can only attend once every 3 years, but in Dorset, you can go every 12 or 6 months, I'm not sure which. Does this suggest that Dorset Road Unsafe only think their "education" will be effective for one year? What the heck is the point in that?

I'm sorry, whatever way you look at this it's a scandal as big as any other, what I have mentioned so far is only the tip of the iceberg, all will be revealed very soon.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: tbpoole said "Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable." The Camera Partnerships, including Dorset Roadsafe, do not need any help to discredit their operations. They have managed to do this by themselves ever since hypothecation allowed them to build their empires from the FIxed Penalty Income. Even a Labour Government found their practices so devious that they stopped it with the Penalties going to the Treasury. They have got round that by setting up Driver Awareness Schemes where they keep the profits. They even increased the speed that a motorist could exceed the speed limit before a Fixed Penalty was issued to 10% +9mph to keep the course gravy train running. That is up to 64mph on Dorset Way so it is obviously not considered dangerous but a minor transgression.[/p][/quote]It's even more blatant than that. Listen to Radio Solent Monday morning to find out, I will be on live commenting on the courses. Dorset is the only county that has not signed up the the national scheme. Everywhere else if you get caught, you can attend a course local to your home. Not Dorset. Some drivers are driving many hundreds of miles (putting themselves at risk in the process of course) and even having to take 2 days off work to attend the course. Not to mention of course that Dorset is still by far the most expensive course (and as I have mentioned, refuse to detail where the money goes, although the top level costs I eventually got indicate waste and / or misrepresentation or fraud on a massive scale). But then if your motivation was financial, rather than public safety, if you were operating a multi £ million industry at what I estimate to be 700% profit, you wouldn't give that up without a fight would you? The criteria have been widened to blatantly maximise throughput, for example, on the national course you can only attend once every 3 years, but in Dorset, you can go every 12 or 6 months, I'm not sure which. Does this suggest that Dorset Road Unsafe only think their "education" will be effective for one year? What the heck is the point in that? I'm sorry, whatever way you look at this it's a scandal as big as any other, what I have mentioned so far is only the tip of the iceberg, all will be revealed very soon. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

8:53pm Sat 8 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
rayc wrote:
tbpoole said "Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable."

The Camera Partnerships, including Dorset Roadsafe, do not need any help to discredit their operations. They have managed to do this by themselves ever since hypothecation allowed them to build their empires from the FIxed Penalty Income. Even a Labour Government found their practices so devious that they stopped it with the Penalties going to the Treasury. They have got round that by setting up Driver Awareness Schemes where they keep the profits. They even increased the speed that a motorist could exceed the speed limit before a Fixed Penalty was issued to 10% +9mph to keep the course gravy train running. That is up to 64mph on Dorset Way so it is obviously not considered dangerous but a minor transgression.
It's even more blatant than that. Listen to Radio Solent Monday morning to find out, I will be on live commenting on the courses. Dorset is the only county that has not signed up the the national scheme. Everywhere else if you get caught, you can attend a course local to your home. Not Dorset. Some drivers are driving many hundreds of miles (putting themselves at risk in the process of course) and even having to take 2 days off work to attend the course.

Not to mention of course that Dorset is still by far the most expensive course (and as I have mentioned, refuse to detail where the money goes, although the top level costs I eventually got indicate waste and / or misrepresentation or fraud on a massive scale).

But then if your motivation was financial, rather than public safety, if you were operating a multi £ million industry at what I estimate to be 700% profit, you wouldn't give that up without a fight would you?

The criteria have been widened to blatantly maximise throughput, for example, on the national course you can only attend once every 3 years, but in Dorset, you can go every 12 or 6 months, I'm not sure which. Does this suggest that Dorset Road Unsafe only think their "education" will be effective for one year? What the heck is the point in that?

I'm sorry, whatever way you look at this it's a scandal as big as any other, what I have mentioned so far is only the tip of the iceberg, all will be revealed very soon.
And the only way to deal with bullies like you is to stand up to them.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: tbpoole said "Dorsetspleen is dangerous because he is attempting to discredit the way enforcement is carried out and by doing so is making speed limit disobeyance more acceptable." The Camera Partnerships, including Dorset Roadsafe, do not need any help to discredit their operations. They have managed to do this by themselves ever since hypothecation allowed them to build their empires from the FIxed Penalty Income. Even a Labour Government found their practices so devious that they stopped it with the Penalties going to the Treasury. They have got round that by setting up Driver Awareness Schemes where they keep the profits. They even increased the speed that a motorist could exceed the speed limit before a Fixed Penalty was issued to 10% +9mph to keep the course gravy train running. That is up to 64mph on Dorset Way so it is obviously not considered dangerous but a minor transgression.[/p][/quote]It's even more blatant than that. Listen to Radio Solent Monday morning to find out, I will be on live commenting on the courses. Dorset is the only county that has not signed up the the national scheme. Everywhere else if you get caught, you can attend a course local to your home. Not Dorset. Some drivers are driving many hundreds of miles (putting themselves at risk in the process of course) and even having to take 2 days off work to attend the course. Not to mention of course that Dorset is still by far the most expensive course (and as I have mentioned, refuse to detail where the money goes, although the top level costs I eventually got indicate waste and / or misrepresentation or fraud on a massive scale). But then if your motivation was financial, rather than public safety, if you were operating a multi £ million industry at what I estimate to be 700% profit, you wouldn't give that up without a fight would you? The criteria have been widened to blatantly maximise throughput, for example, on the national course you can only attend once every 3 years, but in Dorset, you can go every 12 or 6 months, I'm not sure which. Does this suggest that Dorset Road Unsafe only think their "education" will be effective for one year? What the heck is the point in that? I'm sorry, whatever way you look at this it's a scandal as big as any other, what I have mentioned so far is only the tip of the iceberg, all will be revealed very soon.[/p][/quote]And the only way to deal with bullies like you is to stand up to them. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

8:53pm Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

But beyond all that, the public support, everything else, the thing that gives me more confidence than anything else that I am right, is that those with what seems like a mission to discredit me, such as tbpoole, are spectacularly unable to do so.
But beyond all that, the public support, everything else, the thing that gives me more confidence than anything else that I am right, is that those with what seems like a mission to discredit me, such as tbpoole, are spectacularly unable to do so. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

8:55pm Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, just saw your last message, let's try again, if there is anything I have ever said or written that you think is unreasonable, please could you detail it.
tbpoole, just saw your last message, let's try again, if there is anything I have ever said or written that you think is unreasonable, please could you detail it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

8:59pm Sat 8 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
But beyond all that, the public support, everything else, the thing that gives me more confidence than anything else that I am right, is that those with what seems like a mission to discredit me, such as tbpoole, are spectacularly unable to do so.
You don't need much help discrediting yourself given the size of your ego!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: But beyond all that, the public support, everything else, the thing that gives me more confidence than anything else that I am right, is that those with what seems like a mission to discredit me, such as tbpoole, are spectacularly unable to do so.[/p][/quote]You don't need much help discrediting yourself given the size of your ego! tbpoole
  • Score: -5

9:02pm Sat 8 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
But beyond all that, the public support, everything else, the thing that gives me more confidence than anything else that I am right, is that those with what seems like a mission to discredit me, such as tbpoole, are spectacularly unable to do so.
You don't need much help discrediting yourself given the size of your ego!
Regardless of my ego tbpoole I ask again please can you provide some substance. I really cannot be any more accommodating or reasonable.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: But beyond all that, the public support, everything else, the thing that gives me more confidence than anything else that I am right, is that those with what seems like a mission to discredit me, such as tbpoole, are spectacularly unable to do so.[/p][/quote]You don't need much help discrediting yourself given the size of your ego![/p][/quote]Regardless of my ego tbpoole I ask again please can you provide some substance. I really cannot be any more accommodating or reasonable. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

1:15pm Sun 9 Mar 14

ItsNotRocketScience says...

tbpoole, reading through this thread, I have lost count how many times you have criticised dorsetspeed. Similarly, I have lost count of how many times dorsetspeeed has invited you to quote specifics to disprove his statements.

But you haven't done this once. In much the same way as the Police have failed to answer my requests for information in direct breach of the rules governing Freedom of Information... Until you do, you have no credibility.

What I find really sad is that having been brought up to respect the Police, if an officer were to tell me that night followed day, I wouldn't believe them.
tbpoole, reading through this thread, I have lost count how many times you have criticised dorsetspeed. Similarly, I have lost count of how many times dorsetspeeed has invited you to quote specifics to disprove his statements. But you haven't done this once. In much the same way as the Police have failed to answer my requests for information in direct breach of the rules governing Freedom of Information... Until you do, you have no credibility. What I find really sad is that having been brought up to respect the Police, if an officer were to tell me that night followed day, I wouldn't believe them. ItsNotRocketScience
  • Score: 3

11:38pm Sun 9 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
djd wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit.

So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.
No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today.
The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings.
Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents.
The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.
People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it?

This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators.
To draw this to is logical conclusion, all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras. To think you and your ample supporters are allowed to vote, what hope does this nation have, very little judging from the complete bozos who are sprouting their nonsense here. "Police speed cameras kill". Ho, ho, ho.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit. So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.[/p][/quote]No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today. The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings. Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents. The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.[/p][/quote]People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it? This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators.[/p][/quote]To draw this to is logical conclusion, all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras. To think you and your ample supporters are allowed to vote, what hope does this nation have, very little judging from the complete bozos who are sprouting their nonsense here. "Police speed cameras kill". Ho, ho, ho. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

5:39am Mon 10 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ?

I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees.

Talk about "sprouting nonsense"!
breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

8:12am Mon 10 Mar 14

rayc says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
djd wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
miltonarcher wrote:
Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.
Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.
Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.
No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.
Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.
According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit.

So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.
No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today.
The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings.
Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents.
The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.
People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it?

This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators.
To draw this to is logical conclusion, all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras. To think you and your ample supporters are allowed to vote, what hope does this nation have, very little judging from the complete bozos who are sprouting their nonsense here. "Police speed cameras kill". Ho, ho, ho.
Of course not all the accidents in the world are caused by speed cameras. The obsession with them has though been a decade of missed opportunity to reduce KSI's.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]djd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Perhaps dorsetspeed could remind us what speed was that biker doing when he attempted to avoid a speeding ticket by braking, violently, an action that had tragic consequences for the poor guy.[/p][/quote]Stupid analogy, attempting to justify a death by the use of a camera van illegally parked , you should be ashamed of yourself, last time I looked a speeding offence was dealt with by a fixed penalty not execution.[/p][/quote]Idiot, dorsetspeed is campaigning because this biker was killed trying to avoid a speed ticket. His death was a result of excessive speed, not the location of a camera van. The use of the word execution is pathetic. I note dorsetspeed is avoiding my question, how fast was the biker going? I also note that some consider speeding a minor offence, tell that to families of those killed by speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]No, it was due to the location of the camera van. If it had not been there, he would not have panic braked and lost control. There is no excuse for speeding, but there is also no excuse for dangerously parked camera vans either.[/p][/quote]Nope, wrong. If he had been keeping to the speed limit he would still be alive, no need to panic brake, simple.[/p][/quote]According to the coroner, he lost control panic braking for the camera. He might have done that anyway (as many do) as an automatic reaction to seeing a camera whether or not he was above the limit. So if he had been keeping to the limit, he MAY still be alive, but if the camera had not been there, he WOULD still be alive.[/p][/quote]No, Dorset Speed, if he had been keeping to the speed limit and driving aware of his surroundings then he would have had no need to brake and would be alive today. The stupid 'knee-jerk' reaction of braking when one sees a speed camera van is brought about by drivers (and riders) not being aware of how they are driving and of their surroundings. Drivers should be aware of their speed at all times, surely speed is one of the vital factors when making a decision whilst driving. Absence of awareness lead to stupid reactions that cause accidents. The end result to your argument is that had he not been speeding he would have had no reason to brake with such tragic consequences.[/p][/quote]People brake when they see cameras if they are above or below the limit. The camera provides a unique situation of resulting in panic braking when there is actually no physical need to avoid hitting anything. This is alien to everything else and all other risks on the road. No, he might have lost control anyway had he not been speeding due to panic braking. But he would not have braked at all and therefore not have lost control if the camera had not been there. The camera was a more certain factor than the speed. Yes his driving was not perfect but for a supposed "safety" activity to have turned this fairly normal situation into a death is totally unacceptable, particularly when the police subsequently refused to answer how many deaths had a camera as a factor or demonstrate any understanding of the risks, a fundamental requirement for any kind of professional safety work. Indeed they even went as far as stating that they would refuse to consider reports of dangerous reactions by camera operators, can you believe it? This is not a professional safety effort, that is plainly obvious, more so for someone with industrial safety responsibilities such as I have. It's simply just what it looks like - a bunch of jobsworths, parasites and empire builders making money with total disregard for the public and even their own operators.[/p][/quote]To draw this to is logical conclusion, all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras. To think you and your ample supporters are allowed to vote, what hope does this nation have, very little judging from the complete bozos who are sprouting their nonsense here. "Police speed cameras kill". Ho, ho, ho.[/p][/quote]Of course not all the accidents in the world are caused by speed cameras. The obsession with them has though been a decade of missed opportunity to reduce KSI's. rayc
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"!
No, all I said was...."the secondary factor was possibly the van"....not quite the same thing. But then you are very good at twisting words around to suit your own agenda.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"![/p][/quote]No, all I said was...."the secondary factor was possibly the van"....not quite the same thing. But then you are very good at twisting words around to suit your own agenda. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"!
No, all I said was...."the secondary factor was possibly the van"....not quite the same thing. But then you are very good at twisting words around to suit your own agenda.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"![/p][/quote]No, all I said was...."the secondary factor was possibly the van"....not quite the same thing. But then you are very good at twisting words around to suit your own agenda. tbpoole
  • Score: -1

12:49pm Mon 10 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

How could the van have possibly been a factor in this death if vans can NOT provide one of the factors in road accidents?
How could the van have possibly been a factor in this death if vans can NOT provide one of the factors in road accidents? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Mon 10 Mar 14

chiefwolf2 says...

So Dorsetweed if someone killed a member of your family because they were going too fast, what would you say? " oh well at least they were driving within their own personal perceived limits and it wasn't their fault that they lost control on that corner ( or whatever) and hit my member of family head on".
Just think..... that actually does happen to people.
So Dorsetweed if someone killed a member of your family because they were going too fast, what would you say? " oh well at least they were driving within their own personal perceived limits and it wasn't their fault that they lost control on that corner ( or whatever) and hit my member of family head on". Just think..... that actually does happen to people. chiefwolf2
  • Score: -1

3:05pm Mon 10 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

chiefwolf2 wrote:
So Dorsetweed if someone killed a member of your family because they were going too fast, what would you say? " oh well at least they were driving within their own personal perceived limits and it wasn't their fault that they lost control on that corner ( or whatever) and hit my member of family head on".
Just think..... that actually does happen to people.
Oh dear, another person who has to resort to childish name calling. If you read through the previous messages you will find the answers. But just to be clear:

I have never said that dangerous speeding is not a problem, it most certainly is. But Dorset Police don't look for the dangerous speeding, they typically just sit on dual carriageways where some bureaucrat (not a road safety professional) has set the limit 20% below even average speeds, where they can make loads of money. The kinds of speeding incidents that result in deaths typically involve other more serious factors such as drink, drugs, crime, racing, road rage, moments of madness, showing off, youth, inexperience etc. which speed limits or a nip landing on the mat 2 weeks later will hardly help with. Those who want to speed dangerously can pretty much do as they please on the vast majority of road space because we have no PROPER ROADS POLICING.

Just remember the main point is that I would be happy for Dorset Police to continue doing what they were doing if they would simply be honest, open and transparent, demonstrate proper professional process and that what they do is in fact the right choice amongst other options. The fact that they depend on lies and secrecy to do what they do suggests that they know that such transparency would result in serious criticism at the best.

For example, they have refused to detail for nearly 3 years now simply where the money goes. Why on earth would they not welcome such an enquiry if the financial interests were not primary and the money was being spent wisely and ethically? Why did they lie (one of the many) for years telling us there were no financial motivations, when they knew full well it was the course money keeping some of them in work? Why did they set up one of the country's most lucrative cameras on a promise (lie) of reducing casualties, and then have to change their story when they were found out that the site had a ZERO KSI history? Why did they also then lie about the community concern which was non-existent? They even lied when it was shut down saying that it was due to cost cutting!!!!!!! They lied to the information commissioner to encourage them to prevent the IC from insisting that they detailed the costs, ..... Yes I am calling Dorset Police liers, and I do so in total confidence, just like everything I write.

Clearly, if "speeding" is so dangerous and cameras save lives, anyone closing down a £million camera to save costs needs to be rapidly transferred to a padded cell for their own safety as well as everyone else's. Instead they just "refused to discuss it further".

Nothing we see from Dorset Police goes anywhere near to professional safety work and the results tend to confirm it - as the courses have ramped up over the last 3 years so have road deaths and the long term KSI reduction has completely halted as it has continued to fall in the UK.

What it is brilliant at though is making £millions and protecting the jobs involved. If Dorset Police was a private business doing this being investigated by a force, many would expect that kind of behaviour to be considered as obtaining money by deception and perverting the course of justice.
[quote][p][bold]chiefwolf2[/bold] wrote: So Dorsetweed if someone killed a member of your family because they were going too fast, what would you say? " oh well at least they were driving within their own personal perceived limits and it wasn't their fault that they lost control on that corner ( or whatever) and hit my member of family head on". Just think..... that actually does happen to people.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, another person who has to resort to childish name calling. If you read through the previous messages you will find the answers. But just to be clear: I have never said that dangerous speeding is not a problem, it most certainly is. But Dorset Police don't look for the dangerous speeding, they typically just sit on dual carriageways where some bureaucrat (not a road safety professional) has set the limit 20% below even average speeds, where they can make loads of money. The kinds of speeding incidents that result in deaths typically involve other more serious factors such as drink, drugs, crime, racing, road rage, moments of madness, showing off, youth, inexperience etc. which speed limits or a nip landing on the mat 2 weeks later will hardly help with. Those who want to speed dangerously can pretty much do as they please on the vast majority of road space because we have no PROPER ROADS POLICING. Just remember the main point is that I would be happy for Dorset Police to continue doing what they were doing if they would simply be honest, open and transparent, demonstrate proper professional process and that what they do is in fact the right choice amongst other options. The fact that they depend on lies and secrecy to do what they do suggests that they know that such transparency would result in serious criticism at the best. For example, they have refused to detail for nearly 3 years now simply where the money goes. Why on earth would they not welcome such an enquiry if the financial interests were not primary and the money was being spent wisely and ethically? Why did they lie (one of the many) for years telling us there were no financial motivations, when they knew full well it was the course money keeping some of them in work? Why did they set up one of the country's most lucrative cameras on a promise (lie) of reducing casualties, and then have to change their story when they were found out that the site had a ZERO KSI history? Why did they also then lie about the community concern which was non-existent? They even lied when it was shut down saying that it was due to cost cutting!!!!!!! They lied to the information commissioner to encourage them to prevent the IC from insisting that they detailed the costs, ..... Yes I am calling Dorset Police liers, and I do so in total confidence, just like everything I write. Clearly, if "speeding" is so dangerous and cameras save lives, anyone closing down a £million camera to save costs needs to be rapidly transferred to a padded cell for their own safety as well as everyone else's. Instead they just "refused to discuss it further". Nothing we see from Dorset Police goes anywhere near to professional safety work and the results tend to confirm it - as the courses have ramped up over the last 3 years so have road deaths and the long term KSI reduction has completely halted as it has continued to fall in the UK. What it is brilliant at though is making £millions and protecting the jobs involved. If Dorset Police was a private business doing this being investigated by a force, many would expect that kind of behaviour to be considered as obtaining money by deception and perverting the course of justice. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

3:27pm Mon 10 Mar 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ?

I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees.

Talk about "sprouting nonsense"!
Garbage, you've shown nothing of the sort. One of your supporters claimed that the biker had been executed. When I told my friends this they all roared with laughter at anybody being so stupid as to come up with such a stupid claim. It really is laughable, a stationery vehicle is a factor. If that's a fact , and I strongly dispute it, how does that compare to talking on the mobile, reaching into the glove compartment for the hairbrush (that one was shown on Police, Camera, Action many years ago) and so on. Gee whizz please get a life and stop publishing your nonsense. Some of the the pratts reading this might believe you, my intelligent friends don't.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"![/p][/quote]Garbage, you've shown nothing of the sort. One of your supporters claimed that the biker had been executed. When I told my friends this they all roared with laughter at anybody being so stupid as to come up with such a stupid claim. It really is laughable, a stationery vehicle is a factor. If that's a fact , and I strongly dispute it, how does that compare to talking on the mobile, reaching into the glove compartment for the hairbrush (that one was shown on Police, Camera, Action many years ago) and so on. Gee whizz please get a life and stop publishing your nonsense. Some of the the pratts reading this might believe you, my intelligent friends don't. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

3:45pm Mon 10 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ?

I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees.

Talk about "sprouting nonsense"!
Garbage, you've shown nothing of the sort. One of your supporters claimed that the biker had been executed. When I told my friends this they all roared with laughter at anybody being so stupid as to come up with such a stupid claim. It really is laughable, a stationery vehicle is a factor. If that's a fact , and I strongly dispute it, how does that compare to talking on the mobile, reaching into the glove compartment for the hairbrush (that one was shown on Police, Camera, Action many years ago) and so on. Gee whizz please get a life and stop publishing your nonsense. Some of the the pratts reading this might believe you, my intelligent friends don't.
Amusing comments can be found on both sides but I only stand up for what I have written. Could fireworks be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a girl in a miniskirt walking up the pavement be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a van that causes panic breaking be a factor in an accident? Of course. Even tbpoole agrees. Even Prof Allsop, the leading pro-camera academic, agrees that cameras result in accidents that would not otherwise have happened. The coroner in the Rowsell case said the camera was a factor. I am not declaring alone that cameras can contribute to accidents, I am simply providing some of the evidence. If you don't want to believe it that's up to you, but anyone seriously in the business of road safety would be negligent if they ignored the obvious risks of cameras.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"![/p][/quote]Garbage, you've shown nothing of the sort. One of your supporters claimed that the biker had been executed. When I told my friends this they all roared with laughter at anybody being so stupid as to come up with such a stupid claim. It really is laughable, a stationery vehicle is a factor. If that's a fact , and I strongly dispute it, how does that compare to talking on the mobile, reaching into the glove compartment for the hairbrush (that one was shown on Police, Camera, Action many years ago) and so on. Gee whizz please get a life and stop publishing your nonsense. Some of the the pratts reading this might believe you, my intelligent friends don't.[/p][/quote]Amusing comments can be found on both sides but I only stand up for what I have written. Could fireworks be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a girl in a miniskirt walking up the pavement be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a van that causes panic breaking be a factor in an accident? Of course. Even tbpoole agrees. Even Prof Allsop, the leading pro-camera academic, agrees that cameras result in accidents that would not otherwise have happened. The coroner in the Rowsell case said the camera was a factor. I am not declaring alone that cameras can contribute to accidents, I am simply providing some of the evidence. If you don't want to believe it that's up to you, but anyone seriously in the business of road safety would be negligent if they ignored the obvious risks of cameras. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

4:42pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"!
Garbage, you've shown nothing of the sort. One of your supporters claimed that the biker had been executed. When I told my friends this they all roared with laughter at anybody being so stupid as to come up with such a stupid claim. It really is laughable, a stationery vehicle is a factor. If that's a fact , and I strongly dispute it, how does that compare to talking on the mobile, reaching into the glove compartment for the hairbrush (that one was shown on Police, Camera, Action many years ago) and so on. Gee whizz please get a life and stop publishing your nonsense. Some of the the pratts reading this might believe you, my intelligent friends don't.
Amusing comments can be found on both sides but I only stand up for what I have written. Could fireworks be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a girl in a miniskirt walking up the pavement be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a van that causes panic breaking be a factor in an accident? Of course. Even tbpoole agrees. Even Prof Allsop, the leading pro-camera academic, agrees that cameras result in accidents that would not otherwise have happened. The coroner in the Rowsell case said the camera was a factor. I am not declaring alone that cameras can contribute to accidents, I am simply providing some of the evidence. If you don't want to believe it that's up to you, but anyone seriously in the business of road safety would be negligent if they ignored the obvious risks of cameras.
Stop saying I agree with you when I don't please, I said it could possibly have been a factor, I didn't say it was a factor.

You yourself are a liar if you keep repeating that misinformation and getting even more annoying than normal when you do.

What I would really love to know is how much precious public money you have personally WASTED by pursuing all these various ridiculous claims with the Police and then the Information Commissioner or whatever it is called.

I would imagine it must run into tens of thousands of pounds. I feel I must put in a FOI request to find out some day. But then I thought it would only waste more public money.

I think they should ask for a refund of the money you have wasted and put it to good use like giving it to a charity supporting road accident victims and their families.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: breamoreboy, how on earth do you make the absurd leap from anything I have ever said to "all accidents throughout the world are caused by police speed cameras" ? I have not even gone as far as to say speed cameras kill. What I have said is that they can provide one of the factors in road accidents, injuries and deaths, and I am plainly right on this as even tbpoole reluctantly agrees. Talk about "sprouting nonsense"![/p][/quote]Garbage, you've shown nothing of the sort. One of your supporters claimed that the biker had been executed. When I told my friends this they all roared with laughter at anybody being so stupid as to come up with such a stupid claim. It really is laughable, a stationery vehicle is a factor. If that's a fact , and I strongly dispute it, how does that compare to talking on the mobile, reaching into the glove compartment for the hairbrush (that one was shown on Police, Camera, Action many years ago) and so on. Gee whizz please get a life and stop publishing your nonsense. Some of the the pratts reading this might believe you, my intelligent friends don't.[/p][/quote]Amusing comments can be found on both sides but I only stand up for what I have written. Could fireworks be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a girl in a miniskirt walking up the pavement be a factor in an accident? Of course. Could a van that causes panic breaking be a factor in an accident? Of course. Even tbpoole agrees. Even Prof Allsop, the leading pro-camera academic, agrees that cameras result in accidents that would not otherwise have happened. The coroner in the Rowsell case said the camera was a factor. I am not declaring alone that cameras can contribute to accidents, I am simply providing some of the evidence. If you don't want to believe it that's up to you, but anyone seriously in the business of road safety would be negligent if they ignored the obvious risks of cameras.[/p][/quote]Stop saying I agree with you when I don't please, I said it could possibly have been a factor, I didn't say it was a factor. You yourself are a liar if you keep repeating that misinformation and getting even more annoying than normal when you do. What I would really love to know is how much precious public money you have personally WASTED by pursuing all these various ridiculous claims with the Police and then the Information Commissioner or whatever it is called. I would imagine it must run into tens of thousands of pounds. I feel I must put in a FOI request to find out some day. But then I thought it would only waste more public money. I think they should ask for a refund of the money you have wasted and put it to good use like giving it to a charity supporting road accident victims and their families. tbpoole
  • Score: -1

4:55pm Mon 10 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

I didn't say you said it was a factor. I said that if you said it could have been, then you must agree that cameras could be factors in accidents. The examples I have given are not anyone's interpretations, they are history, facts, things that happened. The press release said that the enforcement of speed at red light cameras was to play a part in casualty reduction. When Dorset Police were eventually forced to reveal the money being made, they were also forced to declare casualty stats and there were ZERO deaths and serious injuries. I'll give you the links if you want. As I said, they lied about the casualty reduction objective to make money and how can that not be obtaining money by deception?

I'm sure they have spent lots of money and time trying to avoid my questions. If they have nothing to hide, why did they not just answer them?
I didn't say you said it was a factor. I said that if you said it could have been, then you must agree that cameras could be factors in accidents. The examples I have given are not anyone's interpretations, they are history, facts, things that happened. The press release said that the enforcement of speed at red light cameras was to play a part in casualty reduction. When Dorset Police were eventually forced to reveal the money being made, they were also forced to declare casualty stats and there were ZERO deaths and serious injuries. I'll give you the links if you want. As I said, they lied about the casualty reduction objective to make money and how can that not be obtaining money by deception? I'm sure they have spent lots of money and time trying to avoid my questions. If they have nothing to hide, why did they not just answer them? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
I didn't say you said it was a factor. I said that if you said it could have been, then you must agree that cameras could be factors in accidents. The examples I have given are not anyone's interpretations, they are history, facts, things that happened. The press release said that the enforcement of speed at red light cameras was to play a part in casualty reduction. When Dorset Police were eventually forced to reveal the money being made, they were also forced to declare casualty stats and there were ZERO deaths and serious injuries. I'll give you the links if you want. As I said, they lied about the casualty reduction objective to make money and how can that not be obtaining money by deception?

I'm sure they have spent lots of money and time trying to avoid my questions. If they have nothing to hide, why did they not just answer them?
Given the way you respond here and on your website I would rather imagine it is because the Police haven't given the answer YOU want that you carry on with your campaign, which means that the spending of 'lots of (public) money' as you so flippantly put it, is even less justified in your case. I'd rather the Police didn't waste any more of my hard earned Taxes responding to the likes of you thankyou very much...
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I didn't say you said it was a factor. I said that if you said it could have been, then you must agree that cameras could be factors in accidents. The examples I have given are not anyone's interpretations, they are history, facts, things that happened. The press release said that the enforcement of speed at red light cameras was to play a part in casualty reduction. When Dorset Police were eventually forced to reveal the money being made, they were also forced to declare casualty stats and there were ZERO deaths and serious injuries. I'll give you the links if you want. As I said, they lied about the casualty reduction objective to make money and how can that not be obtaining money by deception? I'm sure they have spent lots of money and time trying to avoid my questions. If they have nothing to hide, why did they not just answer them?[/p][/quote]Given the way you respond here and on your website I would rather imagine it is because the Police haven't given the answer YOU want that you carry on with your campaign, which means that the spending of 'lots of (public) money' as you so flippantly put it, is even less justified in your case. I'd rather the Police didn't waste any more of my hard earned Taxes responding to the likes of you thankyou very much... tbpoole
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
I didn't say you said it was a factor. I said that if you said it could have been, then you must agree that cameras could be factors in accidents. The examples I have given are not anyone's interpretations, they are history, facts, things that happened. The press release said that the enforcement of speed at red light cameras was to play a part in casualty reduction. When Dorset Police were eventually forced to reveal the money being made, they were also forced to declare casualty stats and there were ZERO deaths and serious injuries. I'll give you the links if you want. As I said, they lied about the casualty reduction objective to make money and how can that not be obtaining money by deception?

I'm sure they have spent lots of money and time trying to avoid my questions. If they have nothing to hide, why did they not just answer them?
Given the way you respond here and on your website I would rather imagine it is because the Police haven't given the answer YOU want that you carry on with your campaign, which means that the spending of 'lots of (public) money' as you so flippantly put it, is even less justified in your case. I'd rather the Police didn't waste any more of my hard earned Taxes responding to the likes of you thankyou very much...
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I didn't say you said it was a factor. I said that if you said it could have been, then you must agree that cameras could be factors in accidents. The examples I have given are not anyone's interpretations, they are history, facts, things that happened. The press release said that the enforcement of speed at red light cameras was to play a part in casualty reduction. When Dorset Police were eventually forced to reveal the money being made, they were also forced to declare casualty stats and there were ZERO deaths and serious injuries. I'll give you the links if you want. As I said, they lied about the casualty reduction objective to make money and how can that not be obtaining money by deception? I'm sure they have spent lots of money and time trying to avoid my questions. If they have nothing to hide, why did they not just answer them?[/p][/quote]Given the way you respond here and on your website I would rather imagine it is because the Police haven't given the answer YOU want that you carry on with your campaign, which means that the spending of 'lots of (public) money' as you so flippantly put it, is even less justified in your case. I'd rather the Police didn't waste any more of my hard earned Taxes responding to the likes of you thankyou very much... tbpoole
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Mon 10 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, some substance please, tell my one lie I have stated, one thing that doesn't make sense, from the start you have not done this once - other than to correct me on a numerical point for which I was grateful
tbpoole, some substance please, tell my one lie I have stated, one thing that doesn't make sense, from the start you have not done this once - other than to correct me on a numerical point for which I was grateful dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

9:42pm Mon 10 Mar 14

dorsetspeed says...

And there's more:

DorsetSpeed on Radio Solent - Driver awareness courses

I was asked to contribute to a program item on Radio Solent today about the courses “offered” by Dorset Police. The concerns were that Dorset is almost unique in that it does not take part in the national course – so those caught in Dorset from outside of the area are put to massive cost and inconvenience (not to mention danger on the roads), resulting in Dorset Police benefitting from the highest course fee in the country, a very reasonable concern. I spoke for a few minutes then Supt. Nicky Searle spoke. Later I commented by phone.

Here are the extracts:

Intro, Ian Belchamber, from Supt. Nicky Searle. http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/cours
e1.mp3

It was a weak and evasive contribution from Supt. Nicky Searle. Notice how the crucial points were completely dodged:

1. First question about obstruction of financial integrity. Dodged completely. Instead gave the poor excuse that Dorset is not national because it was one of the first – that’s not a reason, one for the first to start courses, why not one of the first to increase accessibility by going national?
2. She kept saying there is not a national scheme – and also kept saying that they were committed to it!
3. She was then questioned about the transparency of finances AGAIN, and dodged it this time by answering an entirely different question – saying that the course income doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost of education and policing. Perhaps the reason it doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost is that Dorset Police are somehow squandering HALF A MILLION POUNDS purely on staffing to deliver a simple course to 40 people!!! And squandering 3 TIMES THE GOING RATE on course premises!!! This appears to be waste on a massive scale - or were the costs misrepresented to try to hide the profitability? It HAS to be one or the other. Does this problem effect other areas of Dorset Police? This is exactly why Dorset Police need to have control over these costs and be able to demonstrate that they are reasonable. This is why they need to EXPLAIN these absurd and ridiculous costs (and others) and why refusal to detail them for 3 years can only be interpreted in the worst possible way. In any case, most of us are under the impression that we already pay an adequate amount for policing. This seems like an open admission that this income is not incidental to enfacement activities, it has become crucially entwined with them and the police are now dependent on that income and therefore must ensure that it continues. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.
4. Course more expensive because they offer it to a wider spread of offences – again, not a good excuse, the cost is down to the staff and other fixed expenses, not how many words are spoken.
5. She was then questioned about the course cost – refused to detail what it actually was but justified it on the cost of the fine. No, it’s £10 more, and anyway, we’re told it’s education instead of punishment, looks more like both. In reality this looks more like it’s been pushed to the limit of what they can get away with.
6. Although describing how concerned they were about casualty reduction, she failed to mention that while "education" has been massively ramped up during "no excuse" in Dorset in the last 4 years, road deaths have increased in every one of the last 3 and the long term KSI downward trend has halted completely - an abysmal result just as I predicted when it became clear that “no excuse” scheme was aimed at the majority of safe drivers to make money, rather than the dangerous drivers who cause accidents.

Ian Belchamber on the phone later. http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/cours
e2.mp3

Worth a listen, was able to get some good points over.
And there's more: DorsetSpeed on Radio Solent - Driver awareness courses I was asked to contribute to a program item on Radio Solent today about the courses “offered” by Dorset Police. The concerns were that Dorset is almost unique in that it does not take part in the national course – so those caught in Dorset from outside of the area are put to massive cost and inconvenience (not to mention danger on the roads), resulting in Dorset Police benefitting from the highest course fee in the country, a very reasonable concern. I spoke for a few minutes then Supt. Nicky Searle spoke. Later I commented by phone. Here are the extracts: Intro, Ian Belchamber, from Supt. Nicky Searle. http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/cours e1.mp3 It was a weak and evasive contribution from Supt. Nicky Searle. Notice how the crucial points were completely dodged: 1. First question about obstruction of financial integrity. Dodged completely. Instead gave the poor excuse that Dorset is not national because it was one of the first – that’s not a reason, one for the first to start courses, why not one of the first to increase accessibility by going national? 2. She kept saying there is not a national scheme – and also kept saying that they were committed to it! 3. She was then questioned about the transparency of finances AGAIN, and dodged it this time by answering an entirely different question – saying that the course income doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost of education and policing. Perhaps the reason it doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost is that Dorset Police are somehow squandering HALF A MILLION POUNDS purely on staffing to deliver a simple course to 40 people!!! And squandering 3 TIMES THE GOING RATE on course premises!!! This appears to be waste on a massive scale - or were the costs misrepresented to try to hide the profitability? It HAS to be one or the other. Does this problem effect other areas of Dorset Police? This is exactly why Dorset Police need to have control over these costs and be able to demonstrate that they are reasonable. This is why they need to EXPLAIN these absurd and ridiculous costs (and others) and why refusal to detail them for 3 years can only be interpreted in the worst possible way. In any case, most of us are under the impression that we already pay an adequate amount for policing. This seems like an open admission that this income is not incidental to enfacement activities, it has become crucially entwined with them and the police are now dependent on that income and therefore must ensure that it continues. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. 4. Course more expensive because they offer it to a wider spread of offences – again, not a good excuse, the cost is down to the staff and other fixed expenses, not how many words are spoken. 5. She was then questioned about the course cost – refused to detail what it actually was but justified it on the cost of the fine. No, it’s £10 more, and anyway, we’re told it’s education instead of punishment, looks more like both. In reality this looks more like it’s been pushed to the limit of what they can get away with. 6. Although describing how concerned they were about casualty reduction, she failed to mention that while "education" has been massively ramped up during "no excuse" in Dorset in the last 4 years, road deaths have increased in every one of the last 3 and the long term KSI downward trend has halted completely - an abysmal result just as I predicted when it became clear that “no excuse” scheme was aimed at the majority of safe drivers to make money, rather than the dangerous drivers who cause accidents. Ian Belchamber on the phone later. http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/cours e2.mp3 Worth a listen, was able to get some good points over. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

10:35pm Mon 10 Mar 14

rayc says...

She said "saying that the course income doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost of education and policing. "
She is being disingenuous and trying to muddy the waters. It wouldn't because you could not expect all of Dorset Police Traffic and Dorset Roadsafe operations plus the cost of the courses to be funded out of the course income. You would not expect the Policing of the roads to be funded only from transgressors. I suspect that the course fee pays for the course provision including all admin costs and the surplus funds Dorset Roadsafe.
Dorset Roadsafe have the most to profit from the surplus from the course income and it is they who prosecute the offences.They are hardly going to sit all day at the most dangerous locations catching the odd driver but at the safest ones where there are the most transgressors.
She said "saying that the course income doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost of education and policing. " She is being disingenuous and trying to muddy the waters. It wouldn't because you could not expect all of Dorset Police Traffic and Dorset Roadsafe operations plus the cost of the courses to be funded out of the course income. You would not expect the Policing of the roads to be funded only from transgressors. I suspect that the course fee pays for the course provision including all admin costs and the surplus funds Dorset Roadsafe. Dorset Roadsafe have the most to profit from the surplus from the course income and it is they who prosecute the offences.They are hardly going to sit all day at the most dangerous locations catching the odd driver but at the safest ones where there are the most transgressors. rayc
  • Score: 3

11:00pm Mon 10 Mar 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
And there's more:

DorsetSpeed on Radio Solent - Driver awareness courses

I was asked to contribute to a program item on Radio Solent today about the courses “offered” by Dorset Police. The concerns were that Dorset is almost unique in that it does not take part in the national course – so those caught in Dorset from outside of the area are put to massive cost and inconvenience (not to mention danger on the roads), resulting in Dorset Police benefitting from the highest course fee in the country, a very reasonable concern. I spoke for a few minutes then Supt. Nicky Searle spoke. Later I commented by phone.

Here are the extracts:

Intro, Ian Belchamber, from Supt. Nicky Searle. http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk/news/cours

e1.mp3

It was a weak and evasive contribution from Supt. Nicky Searle. Notice how the crucial points were completely dodged:

1. First question about obstruction of financial integrity. Dodged completely. Instead gave the poor excuse that Dorset is not national because it was one of the first – that’s not a reason, one for the first to start courses, why not one of the first to increase accessibility by going national?
2. She kept saying there is not a national scheme – and also kept saying that they were committed to it!
3. She was then questioned about the transparency of finances AGAIN, and dodged it this time by answering an entirely different question – saying that the course income doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost of education and policing. Perhaps the reason it doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost is that Dorset Police are somehow squandering HALF A MILLION POUNDS purely on staffing to deliver a simple course to 40 people!!! And squandering 3 TIMES THE GOING RATE on course premises!!! This appears to be waste on a massive scale - or were the costs misrepresented to try to hide the profitability? It HAS to be one or the other. Does this problem effect other areas of Dorset Police? This is exactly why Dorset Police need to have control over these costs and be able to demonstrate that they are reasonable. This is why they need to EXPLAIN these absurd and ridiculous costs (and others) and why refusal to detail them for 3 years can only be interpreted in the worst possible way. In any case, most of us are under the impression that we already pay an adequate amount for policing. This seems like an open admission that this income is not incidental to enfacement activities, it has become crucially entwined with them and the police are now dependent on that income and therefore must ensure that it continues. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.
4. Course more expensive because they offer it to a wider spread of offences – again, not a good excuse, the cost is down to the staff and other fixed expenses, not how many words are spoken.
5. She was then questioned about the course cost – refused to detail what it actually was but justified it on the cost of the fine. No, it’s £10 more, and anyway, we’re told it’s education instead of punishment, looks more like both. In reality this looks more like it’s been pushed to the limit of what they can get away with.
6. Although describing how concerned they were about casualty reduction, she failed to mention that while "education" has been massively ramped up during "no excuse" in Dorset in the last 4 years, road deaths have increased in every one of the last 3 and the long term KSI downward trend has halted completely - an abysmal result just as I predicted when it became clear that “no excuse” scheme was aimed at the majority of safe drivers to make money, rather than the dangerous drivers who cause accidents.

Ian Belchamber on the phone later. http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk/news/cours

e2.mp3

Worth a listen, was able to get some good points over.
Perhaps the extra income is required to pay for all the extra staff and resources needed to answer all your time wasting questions.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: And there's more: DorsetSpeed on Radio Solent - Driver awareness courses I was asked to contribute to a program item on Radio Solent today about the courses “offered” by Dorset Police. The concerns were that Dorset is almost unique in that it does not take part in the national course – so those caught in Dorset from outside of the area are put to massive cost and inconvenience (not to mention danger on the roads), resulting in Dorset Police benefitting from the highest course fee in the country, a very reasonable concern. I spoke for a few minutes then Supt. Nicky Searle spoke. Later I commented by phone. Here are the extracts: Intro, Ian Belchamber, from Supt. Nicky Searle. http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/cours e1.mp3 It was a weak and evasive contribution from Supt. Nicky Searle. Notice how the crucial points were completely dodged: 1. First question about obstruction of financial integrity. Dodged completely. Instead gave the poor excuse that Dorset is not national because it was one of the first – that’s not a reason, one for the first to start courses, why not one of the first to increase accessibility by going national? 2. She kept saying there is not a national scheme – and also kept saying that they were committed to it! 3. She was then questioned about the transparency of finances AGAIN, and dodged it this time by answering an entirely different question – saying that the course income doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost of education and policing. Perhaps the reason it doesn’t meet a quarter of the cost is that Dorset Police are somehow squandering HALF A MILLION POUNDS purely on staffing to deliver a simple course to 40 people!!! And squandering 3 TIMES THE GOING RATE on course premises!!! This appears to be waste on a massive scale - or were the costs misrepresented to try to hide the profitability? It HAS to be one or the other. Does this problem effect other areas of Dorset Police? This is exactly why Dorset Police need to have control over these costs and be able to demonstrate that they are reasonable. This is why they need to EXPLAIN these absurd and ridiculous costs (and others) and why refusal to detail them for 3 years can only be interpreted in the worst possible way. In any case, most of us are under the impression that we already pay an adequate amount for policing. This seems like an open admission that this income is not incidental to enfacement activities, it has become crucially entwined with them and the police are now dependent on that income and therefore must ensure that it continues. Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. 4. Course more expensive because they offer it to a wider spread of offences – again, not a good excuse, the cost is down to the staff and other fixed expenses, not how many words are spoken. 5. She was then questioned about the course cost – refused to detail what it actually was but justified it on the cost of the fine. No, it’s £10 more, and anyway, we’re told it’s education instead of punishment, looks more like both. In reality this looks more like it’s been pushed to the limit of what they can get away with. 6. Although describing how concerned they were about casualty reduction, she failed to mention that while "education" has been massively ramped up during "no excuse" in Dorset in the last 4 years, road deaths have increased in every one of the last 3 and the long term KSI downward trend has halted completely - an abysmal result just as I predicted when it became clear that “no excuse” scheme was aimed at the majority of safe drivers to make money, rather than the dangerous drivers who cause accidents. Ian Belchamber on the phone later. http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/cours e2.mp3 Worth a listen, was able to get some good points over.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the extra income is required to pay for all the extra staff and resources needed to answer all your time wasting questions. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

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