£5m spent on road safety but deaths on Dorset roads still on the rise as police step up No Excuse campaign

£5m spent on road safety but deaths on Dorset roads still on the rise as police step up No Excuse campaign

£5m spent on road safety but deaths on Dorset roads still on the rise as police step up No Excuse campaign

First published in News
Last updated
by , Chief Reporter

DORSET Police has today announced that it is pouring more resources into its ‘no excuse’ campaign.

In doing so, it has published figures which show that the total cost of road safety for the county during the financial year of 2013/14 was £5,323,000.

That included £1,564,000 for the Driver Awareness Scheme. The course generated £2,533,000 in income from fees, which the police said had been re-invested into road safety.

The announcement that a new team will be set up to enhance the ‘no excuse’ campaign comes against a backdrop of rising fatalities on the county’s roads.

Last year, 28 people were killed, compared to 24 in 2012 and 19 in 2011.

Dorset’s fatality figures continue to be higher than other force areas and Dorset Police said that road safety remained a priority.

Superintendent Nicky Searle, of Dorset Police’s Operational Support Command, said: “People tell us they want to see more visible policing on Dorset’s roads, not just a reliance on speed cameras and we have responded.

“In autumn this year we are introducing a dedicated, self-funded ‘no excuse’ team of trained police officers.

“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

“Dorset Police is totally committed to reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on the county’s roads.

“I want to ensure that through ‘no excuse’ activity there is a real focus on driver awareness of the impact that motoring offences can have on people’s lives, however unintentional. The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.”

From October the new team, consisting of one sergeant, six constables and two dedicated members of police staff will solely concentrate on ‘no excuse’ enforcement and follow-up enquiries in relation to issued tickets where the motorist failed to respond to the penalty.

Officers will issue fixed penalty notices and advice and also provide an educational booklet, which gives information and guidance on avoiding driving carelessly.

In most of the cases where motorists receive a fixed penalty notice they can choose to attend a course under the Driver Awareness Scheme costing £110 as an alternative to penalty points.

Superintendent Searle added: “The enhanced ‘no excuse’ team will provide a dedicated resource in the fight to tackle the main offences which are contributing factors in many road traffic collisions.

“Importantly, this isn’t just about speeding. Officers can respond to dangerous driving that cameras are not able to. Drivers tell us that face to face contact with a police officer is the most impactive way to address behaviour on the roads.

“The figures show that despite the great work by the ‘no excuse’ campaign so far, more needs to be done if the number of serious injuries and deaths on Dorset’s road are to decrease.

“The effects of serious road traffic collisions are far reaching for all involved – the victims, their families, witnesses and also members of the emergency services, who deal with the aftermath of the collision and have to impart terrible news to the families of those involved in a road traffic collision.

“We are committed to challenging dangerous behaviour on our roads and investing money directly from enforcement back into this important area of policing to save lives.”

The figures released today do not include the Dorset Road Safe Partnership, which operates mobile speed cameras.

That cost was £1.29m in 2013/14 and was funded by local authorities – £500,000 – and Dorset Police – £790,000.

Comments (138)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:29pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents. Hessenford
  • Score: 22

4:29pm Thu 24 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.”

Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you BarrHumbug
  • Score: 9

4:35pm Thu 24 Jul 14

EddieVH says...

I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective?

Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach.

I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'.
I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective? Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach. I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'. EddieVH
  • Score: 44

4:39pm Thu 24 Jul 14

BIGTONE says...

Superintendent Nicky Searle, of Dorset Police’s Operational Support Command, said: “People tell us they want to see more visible policing on Dorset’s roads, not just a reliance on speed cameras and we have responded.

The top priority people ask is more Bobbies on the beat.
Isn't it amazing that extra resources are found when income can also be generated.

Bobbies on the beat don't make money.

What a sad reflection of authority these days.
Superintendent Nicky Searle, of Dorset Police’s Operational Support Command, said: “People tell us they want to see more visible policing on Dorset’s roads, not just a reliance on speed cameras and we have responded. The top priority people ask is more Bobbies on the beat. Isn't it amazing that extra resources are found when income can also be generated. Bobbies on the beat don't make money. What a sad reflection of authority these days. BIGTONE
  • Score: 32

4:59pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Controversial But True says...

Hessenford wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
It's the losing control as you struggle to fit the seatbelt when you see a yellow high-viz jacket close ahead - only to find it's one of those useless PSCOs!!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.[/p][/quote]It's the losing control as you struggle to fit the seatbelt when you see a yellow high-viz jacket close ahead - only to find it's one of those useless PSCOs!! Controversial But True
  • Score: 6

5:16pm Thu 24 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money. tbpoole
  • Score: 15

5:17pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Controversial But True wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
It's the losing control as you struggle to fit the seatbelt when you see a yellow high-viz jacket close ahead - only to find it's one of those useless PSCOs!!
Good excuse.
[quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.[/p][/quote]It's the losing control as you struggle to fit the seatbelt when you see a yellow high-viz jacket close ahead - only to find it's one of those useless PSCOs!![/p][/quote]Good excuse. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

BIGTONE wrote:
Superintendent Nicky Searle, of Dorset Police’s Operational Support Command, said: “People tell us they want to see more visible policing on Dorset’s roads, not just a reliance on speed cameras and we have responded.

The top priority people ask is more Bobbies on the beat.
Isn't it amazing that extra resources are found when income can also be generated.

Bobbies on the beat don't make money.

What a sad reflection of authority these days.
The problem is that More visible policing means simply more coppers with hand held mobile cameras, if that's all they can do to stop deaths on the road then its pretty poor.
[quote][p][bold]BIGTONE[/bold] wrote: Superintendent Nicky Searle, of Dorset Police’s Operational Support Command, said: “People tell us they want to see more visible policing on Dorset’s roads, not just a reliance on speed cameras and we have responded. The top priority people ask is more Bobbies on the beat. Isn't it amazing that extra resources are found when income can also be generated. Bobbies on the beat don't make money. What a sad reflection of authority these days.[/p][/quote]The problem is that More visible policing means simply more coppers with hand held mobile cameras, if that's all they can do to stop deaths on the road then its pretty poor. Hessenford
  • Score: 12

5:25pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high. Hessenford
  • Score: 11

5:50pm Thu 24 Jul 14

asj says...

there was a time long ago. if you had a burglary or a theft from your house etc. a phone call to the local police would merit a visit from them. all you get now is a "crime number" over the phone. but drive down to shops without your seatbelt on lookout you will be caught !!!
there was a time long ago. if you had a burglary or a theft from your house etc. a phone call to the local police would merit a visit from them. all you get now is a "crime number" over the phone. but drive down to shops without your seatbelt on lookout you will be caught !!! asj
  • Score: 31

6:06pm Thu 24 Jul 14

The Stig2 says...

Pot holes, speeding in the wrong place at the wrong time, poor road designs, lack of road markings, lane information is left to late, insurance lottery, some people taking advantage of other peoples mistakes because they can hit them legally for the principle of it, PEOPLE FORGOT WHAT THE MIDDLE PEDAL IS FOR, THAT FORGOTTEN "EMERGENCY BRAKING" as part of your driving test !!!
Pot holes, speeding in the wrong place at the wrong time, poor road designs, lack of road markings, lane information is left to late, insurance lottery, some people taking advantage of other peoples mistakes because they can hit them legally for the principle of it, PEOPLE FORGOT WHAT THE MIDDLE PEDAL IS FOR, THAT FORGOTTEN "EMERGENCY BRAKING" as part of your driving test !!! The Stig2
  • Score: 9

6:07pm Thu 24 Jul 14

High Treason says...

The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.
The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police. High Treason
  • Score: 28

6:09pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Diesel Dog says...

How many poor families have lost a loved one on the A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne so far this year. Add the previous year at least 3 in the 40 mph zone on an A road. Maybe its time for a major rebuild of this dangerous road. How about the A35 too between Bere Regis and Bakers Arms Roundabout. Bet they introduce a 30 mph restriction and Average speed cameras as a cheap alternative.
How many poor families have lost a loved one on the A31 between Bere Regis and Wimborne so far this year. Add the previous year at least 3 in the 40 mph zone on an A road. Maybe its time for a major rebuild of this dangerous road. How about the A35 too between Bere Regis and Bakers Arms Roundabout. Bet they introduce a 30 mph restriction and Average speed cameras as a cheap alternative. Diesel Dog
  • Score: 3

6:22pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Bournemouth Ohec says...

I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly.

Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car.

I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on.

There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.
I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly. Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car. I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on. There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly. Bournemouth Ohec
  • Score: 33

6:43pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

EddieVH wrote:
I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective?

Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach.

I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'.
A nice littler earner? Well apart from the additional cost clearly outweighs the revenue generated.

"the total cost of road safety for the county during the financial year of 2013/14 was £5,323,000.

That included £1,564,000 for the Driver Awareness Scheme. The course generated £2,533,000 in income from fees"

So, unless they issued fines of £2.8m plus (28,000 tickets or 535 a week) they will not even have broken even.

Throw in the fact that motor ticket money doesn't even go to the Police (it is goes into the Treasury's consolidated fund, which the Government's own bank account) and it makes me wonder how you can suggest it is an 'earner'..
[quote][p][bold]EddieVH[/bold] wrote: I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective? Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach. I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'.[/p][/quote]A nice littler earner? Well apart from the additional cost clearly outweighs the revenue generated. "the total cost of road safety for the county during the financial year of 2013/14 was £5,323,000. That included £1,564,000 for the Driver Awareness Scheme. The course generated £2,533,000 in income from fees" So, unless they issued fines of £2.8m plus (28,000 tickets or 535 a week) they will not even have broken even. Throw in the fact that motor ticket money doesn't even go to the Police (it is goes into the Treasury's consolidated fund, which the Government's own bank account) and it makes me wonder how you can suggest it is an 'earner'.. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 10

6:46pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Old Colonial says...

Bournemouth Ohec wrote:
I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly.

Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car.

I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on.

There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.
I'll go along with that. On a recent round trip to Yorkshire I did not see a single marked police car on any class of road I used. Seems to be a thing of the past.
[quote][p][bold]Bournemouth Ohec[/bold] wrote: I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly. Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car. I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on. There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.[/p][/quote]I'll go along with that. On a recent round trip to Yorkshire I did not see a single marked police car on any class of road I used. Seems to be a thing of the past. Old Colonial
  • Score: 15

6:48pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 7

6:50pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

I would like to know exactly what we get for £5.323.000 because I see no evidence of that kind of money being spent.
I would like to know exactly what we get for £5.323.000 because I see no evidence of that kind of money being spent. Hessenford
  • Score: 9

6:51pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
*course
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?[/p][/quote]*course scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

6:57pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
*course
Who mentioned anything about court costs.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?[/p][/quote]*course[/p][/quote]Who mentioned anything about court costs. Hessenford
  • Score: -5

7:09pm Thu 24 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then? tbpoole
  • Score: -2

7:14pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Greatstuff says...

So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.
So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required. Greatstuff
  • Score: -20

7:16pm Thu 24 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

Hessenford wrote:
I would like to know exactly what we get for £5.323.000 because I see no evidence of that kind of money being spent.
Have a look here it's all in the public domain......

http://www.dorset.pc
c.police.uk/Document
-Library/Road-Safety
-Investigation-Repor
t-(July-2014)/21-Bre
akdown-of-annual-inc
ome-expenditure-of-t
he-Dorset-Driver-Awa
reness-Course-2006-t
o-2013.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: I would like to know exactly what we get for £5.323.000 because I see no evidence of that kind of money being spent.[/p][/quote]Have a look here it's all in the public domain...... http://www.dorset.pc c.police.uk/Document -Library/Road-Safety -Investigation-Repor t-(July-2014)/21-Bre akdown-of-annual-inc ome-expenditure-of-t he-Dorset-Driver-Awa reness-Course-2006-t o-2013.pdf tbpoole
  • Score: 4

8:04pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

8:06pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Teddy 1 says...

EddieVH wrote:
I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective?

Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach.

I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'.
Exactly. Why are the police not looking at the apprpach before casualties went up again. No excuse is a tired and worn put approach concentrating on 'getting mororists' & then educate them after. Why are you not educating before people are caught
..a softer approach not so much stick. Pleased there has been a change in management style seems to be filtering through.
[quote][p][bold]EddieVH[/bold] wrote: I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective? Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach. I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Why are the police not looking at the apprpach before casualties went up again. No excuse is a tired and worn put approach concentrating on 'getting mororists' & then educate them after. Why are you not educating before people are caught ..a softer approach not so much stick. Pleased there has been a change in management style seems to be filtering through. Teddy 1
  • Score: 1

8:19pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
*course
Who mentioned anything about court costs.
I meant (hence the correction) the cost of the Driver Awaare Course, not that diffucult.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?[/p][/quote]*course[/p][/quote]Who mentioned anything about court costs.[/p][/quote]I meant (hence the correction) the cost of the Driver Awaare Course, not that diffucult. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Thu 24 Jul 14

equinoxial says...

Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What most people do not realise is insurance companies will put your premiums up even if you go on the driver awareness course. The insurance companies are asking have you been on a driver awareness course along with asking if you have had any accidents in the last so many years.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What most people do not realise is insurance companies will put your premiums up even if you go on the driver awareness course. The insurance companies are asking have you been on a driver awareness course along with asking if you have had any accidents in the last so many years. equinoxial
  • Score: 6

8:24pm Thu 24 Jul 14

equinoxial says...

Interesting read on link below. Shows it doesn't pay to take the driver awareness course.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/n
ews/uk-20328860
Interesting read on link below. Shows it doesn't pay to take the driver awareness course. http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-20328860 equinoxial
  • Score: 1

8:26pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
So? That's nothing to do with the Police.

Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have.

Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point.

Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.[/p][/quote]So? That's nothing to do with the Police. Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have. Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point. Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

8:29pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

equinoxial wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What most people do not realise is insurance companies will put your premiums up even if you go on the driver awareness course. The insurance companies are asking have you been on a driver awareness course along with asking if you have had any accidents in the last so many years.
I have been doing my insurance on line for years and have never been asked if I have been on a driver awareness course but I have been told that Admiral are now asking although its not classed as a conviction. I have done two separate quotes in one day and on one I answered no, on the other yes and there was no difference in quoted prices.
[quote][p][bold]equinoxial[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What most people do not realise is insurance companies will put your premiums up even if you go on the driver awareness course. The insurance companies are asking have you been on a driver awareness course along with asking if you have had any accidents in the last so many years.[/p][/quote]I have been doing my insurance on line for years and have never been asked if I have been on a driver awareness course but I have been told that Admiral are now asking although its not classed as a conviction. I have done two separate quotes in one day and on one I answered no, on the other yes and there was no difference in quoted prices. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

8:31pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
So? That's nothing to do with the Police.

Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have.

Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point.

Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?
Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.[/p][/quote]So? That's nothing to do with the Police. Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have. Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point. Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?[/p][/quote]Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****. Hessenford
  • Score: 3

8:53pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Tripod says...

Driving standards have deteriorated since the introduction of Fixed Penalty tickets, many drivers now see motoring offences as just another tax on motorists (a number of the comments here are proof of that), the only way to reverse the deterioration is to only issue a fixed penalty for the first/second offence, all subsequent offences should be "upgraded" to a full court appearance.
Driving standards have deteriorated since the introduction of Fixed Penalty tickets, many drivers now see motoring offences as just another tax on motorists (a number of the comments here are proof of that), the only way to reverse the deterioration is to only issue a fixed penalty for the first/second offence, all subsequent offences should be "upgraded" to a full court appearance. Tripod
  • Score: 4

9:27pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Some people are pathetic says...

Do people want the police to do their best with limited resources to make our roads as safe as possible??? Drive safely and considerately and you've nothing to worry about. We have all seen the idiot driving on the phone and thought where are the police.....well let's allow them to get on and do the best they can. I've been affected by road death and fully support the no excuse campaign
Do people want the police to do their best with limited resources to make our roads as safe as possible??? Drive safely and considerately and you've nothing to worry about. We have all seen the idiot driving on the phone and thought where are the police.....well let's allow them to get on and do the best they can. I've been affected by road death and fully support the no excuse campaign Some people are pathetic
  • Score: 15

9:29pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Good news though, at last lorry speeds are being increased to 50mph instead of limited to 40mph on single carriageway roads and from 50mph to 60mph on duel carriageways, about time we moved out of the dark ages, now lets get cars up to 80mph on motorways.
Good news though, at last lorry speeds are being increased to 50mph instead of limited to 40mph on single carriageway roads and from 50mph to 60mph on duel carriageways, about time we moved out of the dark ages, now lets get cars up to 80mph on motorways. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

9:55pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Bournesouthmouth Downpokes says...

High Treason wrote:
The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.
The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer.
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.[/p][/quote]The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer. Bournesouthmouth Downpokes
  • Score: -4

10:01pm Thu 24 Jul 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Hessenford wrote:
I would like to know exactly what we get for £5.323.000 because I see no evidence of that kind of money being spent.
Could not agree more, probably spent on new camera vans and more technology, little spent on actual road safety like design of roads etc
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: I would like to know exactly what we get for £5.323.000 because I see no evidence of that kind of money being spent.[/p][/quote]Could not agree more, probably spent on new camera vans and more technology, little spent on actual road safety like design of roads etc itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: 3

10:19pm Thu 24 Jul 14

BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth says...

It's no coincidence that Dorset has the worst roads in the country by a country mile, driving west through Dorset from the East, the dual carriageway effectively stops as you get into Dorset and doesn't really get going again until Devon apart from the bit from Bere Regis to Dorchester. Going north the situation is even more dreadful, our main road north is the A350 which frankly is appalling and little better than a cart track.

Factually the safest roads in the country are motorways, we haven't got any motorways or anything that resembles one, for people to drive safely we need a dual carriageway right across the county and that is the root cause of the problem. Of course it will never get built because there would be too many objections.
It's no coincidence that Dorset has the worst roads in the country by a country mile, driving west through Dorset from the East, the dual carriageway effectively stops as you get into Dorset and doesn't really get going again until Devon apart from the bit from Bere Regis to Dorchester. Going north the situation is even more dreadful, our main road north is the A350 which frankly is appalling and little better than a cart track. Factually the safest roads in the country are motorways, we haven't got any motorways or anything that resembles one, for people to drive safely we need a dual carriageway right across the county and that is the root cause of the problem. Of course it will never get built because there would be too many objections. BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth
  • Score: 18

10:25pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Bournesouthmouth Downpokes wrote:
High Treason wrote:
The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.
The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer.
I'm sorry I seem to have misundertood you, you'll laugh but I read that as if we all drove automatics most of the problems on the road would disappear.


I know, you can't imagine how foolish I felt,
[quote][p][bold]Bournesouthmouth Downpokes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.[/p][/quote]The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry I seem to have misundertood you, you'll laugh but I read that as if we all drove automatics most of the problems on the road would disappear. I know, you can't imagine how foolish I felt, scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

10:28pm Thu 24 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
So? That's nothing to do with the Police.

Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have.

Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point.

Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?
Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.
And end with name calling. Brilliant,

Bravo.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.[/p][/quote]So? That's nothing to do with the Police. Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have. Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point. Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?[/p][/quote]Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.[/p][/quote]And end with name calling. Brilliant, Bravo. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

10:28pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

There are more accidents because there are more cars on the roads!!
More and more people coming into the country making the roads more congested.
Also driving standards - particularly in Eastern Europe - are poor. Lots of foreign cars on the road possibly poorly maintained.
There are more accidents because there are more cars on the roads!! More and more people coming into the country making the roads more congested. Also driving standards - particularly in Eastern Europe - are poor. Lots of foreign cars on the road possibly poorly maintained. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 8

10:32pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
So? That's nothing to do with the Police.

Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have.

Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point.

Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?
Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.
And end with name calling. Brilliant,

Bravo.
Yea well, you deserve it.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.[/p][/quote]So? That's nothing to do with the Police. Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have. Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point. Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?[/p][/quote]Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.[/p][/quote]And end with name calling. Brilliant, Bravo.[/p][/quote]Yea well, you deserve it. Hessenford
  • Score: -4

10:37pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Chief-Wiggum says...

Hessenford wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.[/p][/quote]Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do. Chief-Wiggum
  • Score: 9

10:53pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Teddy 1 says...

Chief-Wiggum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do.
Education before accidents and fines etc not after though is preferable?
[quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.[/p][/quote]Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do.[/p][/quote]Education before accidents and fines etc not after though is preferable? Teddy 1
  • Score: 1

10:57pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Peroni says...

I'd like to see more police on the street ,fighting crime and catching criminals ,to much focus on extracting money from motorists.
Try phoning when you need them ,if you have a burglary ,or property stolen or vandalised ,see where it gets you !!!!
No where !
I'd like to see more police on the street ,fighting crime and catching criminals ,to much focus on extracting money from motorists. Try phoning when you need them ,if you have a burglary ,or property stolen or vandalised ,see where it gets you !!!! No where ! Peroni
  • Score: -2

11:01pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Chief-Wiggum says...

Teddy 1 wrote:
Chief-Wiggum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do.
Education before accidents and fines etc not after though is preferable?
Of course but in everyones busy and hectic lifestyles its easier said than done.
[quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.[/p][/quote]Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do.[/p][/quote]Education before accidents and fines etc not after though is preferable?[/p][/quote]Of course but in everyones busy and hectic lifestyles its easier said than done. Chief-Wiggum
  • Score: 4

11:23pm Thu 24 Jul 14

adspacebroker says...

I just cant be bothered http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lin
colnshire-28460739
I just cant be bothered http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lin colnshire-28460739 adspacebroker
  • Score: -3

11:23pm Thu 24 Jul 14

adspacebroker says...

I just cant be bothered http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lin
colnshire-28460739
I just cant be bothered http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lin colnshire-28460739 adspacebroker
  • Score: -2

11:37pm Thu 24 Jul 14

chris100 says...

I got offered a Driver Awearness course I turned it down 3 times but they were pushy and trying to force it on me until I told them 3 points don't bother me as I don't pay for the insurance
I got offered a Driver Awearness course I turned it down 3 times but they were pushy and trying to force it on me until I told them 3 points don't bother me as I don't pay for the insurance chris100
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Minty Fresh says...

The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 2

11:46pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Secada83 says...

No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits
No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits Secada83
  • Score: 7

11:49pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Local Knowledge says...

I saw a policewoman in a police car take a sip from a costa coffee cup this morning whilst she was approaching the Wessex Way roundabout near the central station, during rush hour. I cursed myself for not having installed my vehicle cam yet.
I'm sick of all this holier than thou attitude from the authorities. They've got us all watching anything but the road in front, yet they tell us it's all in the name of safety. Do something about uninsured, unroadworthy foreign vehicles before you penalise otherwise law abiding citizens rushing around trying to scratch a living.
I saw a policewoman in a police car take a sip from a costa coffee cup this morning whilst she was approaching the Wessex Way roundabout near the central station, during rush hour. I cursed myself for not having installed my vehicle cam yet. I'm sick of all this holier than thou attitude from the authorities. They've got us all watching anything but the road in front, yet they tell us it's all in the name of safety. Do something about uninsured, unroadworthy foreign vehicles before you penalise otherwise law abiding citizens rushing around trying to scratch a living. Local Knowledge
  • Score: 7

12:12am Fri 25 Jul 14

Teddy 1 says...

Chief-Wiggum wrote:
Teddy 1 wrote:
Chief-Wiggum wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do.
Education before accidents and fines etc not after though is preferable?
Of course but in everyones busy and hectic lifestyles its easier said than done.
Sorry, I mean adverts, radio interviews, posters etc making people think subconscious education, children in the car reminding parents . Education in a softer way, reminding not telling by sitting in a classroom being lectured to, sorry inclusive discussions. Just feel there are better ways to crack the nut.
[quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.[/p][/quote]Not wearing a seatbelt causes deaths if the car crashes, the death rate on Dorset's roads is high and doesn't seem to be improving, so if they target people who don't wear seatbelts they are technically preventing people dying and getting the death rate down overall which is ultimately what they have to do.[/p][/quote]Education before accidents and fines etc not after though is preferable?[/p][/quote]Of course but in everyones busy and hectic lifestyles its easier said than done.[/p][/quote]Sorry, I mean adverts, radio interviews, posters etc making people think subconscious education, children in the car reminding parents . Education in a softer way, reminding not telling by sitting in a classroom being lectured to, sorry inclusive discussions. Just feel there are better ways to crack the nut. Teddy 1
  • Score: 5

12:14am Fri 25 Jul 14

Chief-Wiggum says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
Totally agree, they are always positioned where they cannot be seen until its too late and they have snapped you. If the aim is to make the roads safer and get people to not speed then they should be highly visible so people see them and realise they are going too fast and prosecute the people that totally ignore it.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]Totally agree, they are always positioned where they cannot be seen until its too late and they have snapped you. If the aim is to make the roads safer and get people to not speed then they should be highly visible so people see them and realise they are going too fast and prosecute the people that totally ignore it. Chief-Wiggum
  • Score: 5

12:52am Fri 25 Jul 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

'No Excuses'! Or what??
.
The law is a joke. We saw yesterday how a guy kills someone in a 'Hit and Run' but still avoids jail.
.
Brand it whatever you like. No one really takes the Police seriously these days.
'No Excuses'! Or what?? . The law is a joke. We saw yesterday how a guy kills someone in a 'Hit and Run' but still avoids jail. . Brand it whatever you like. No one really takes the Police seriously these days. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -2

12:55am Fri 25 Jul 14

Wageslave says...

If the Police parked up next to any major roundabout in Bournemouth they could catch dozens of people driving while using mobile phones. Confiscate their phones, that is a punishment that would REALLY hurt.
If the Police parked up next to any major roundabout in Bournemouth they could catch dozens of people driving while using mobile phones. Confiscate their phones, that is a punishment that would REALLY hurt. Wageslave
  • Score: 13

5:09am Fri 25 Jul 14

Tango Charlie says...

Hessenford wrote:
Good news though, at last lorry speeds are being increased to 50mph instead of limited to 40mph on single carriageway roads and from 50mph to 60mph on duel carriageways, about time we moved out of the dark ages, now lets get cars up to 80mph on motorways.
This seems good news but is meaningless in practice. Most big firms in the UK have limiters fitted that reduces the speed to 50 mph anyway. But that is only 6 mph slower than than the standard limiter allowed on the roads.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Good news though, at last lorry speeds are being increased to 50mph instead of limited to 40mph on single carriageway roads and from 50mph to 60mph on duel carriageways, about time we moved out of the dark ages, now lets get cars up to 80mph on motorways.[/p][/quote]This seems good news but is meaningless in practice. Most big firms in the UK have limiters fitted that reduces the speed to 50 mph anyway. But that is only 6 mph slower than than the standard limiter allowed on the roads. Tango Charlie
  • Score: 1

5:24am Fri 25 Jul 14

Tango Charlie says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Bournesouthmouth Downpokes wrote:
High Treason wrote:
The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.
The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer.
I'm sorry I seem to have misundertood you, you'll laugh but I read that as if we all drove automatics most of the problems on the road would disappear.


I know, you can't imagine how foolish I felt,
Amazingly there is a grain of truth in there. For those who remembers the advice from the highway code about 2 hands on the wheel, not having to remove your hand to change gear allows you to do just that. This allows for better control. Of course, this does not stop all the problems though. Having driven German Police cars at speed I can attest that the handling of an automatic was better on the bends than the British alternatives.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournesouthmouth Downpokes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.[/p][/quote]The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry I seem to have misundertood you, you'll laugh but I read that as if we all drove automatics most of the problems on the road would disappear. I know, you can't imagine how foolish I felt,[/p][/quote]Amazingly there is a grain of truth in there. For those who remembers the advice from the highway code about 2 hands on the wheel, not having to remove your hand to change gear allows you to do just that. This allows for better control. Of course, this does not stop all the problems though. Having driven German Police cars at speed I can attest that the handling of an automatic was better on the bends than the British alternatives. Tango Charlie
  • Score: 1

7:10am Fri 25 Jul 14

carrrob says...

More cars,more motorbikes and more cyclists using poorly maintained roads it will only get worse .
More cars,more motorbikes and more cyclists using poorly maintained roads it will only get worse . carrrob
  • Score: 3

7:21am Fri 25 Jul 14

AdelaidePete says...

I was in the U.K. for a month and saw about two police cars. They can't be everywhere, and that's down to politicians who decide how many to have. That said I saw the best bit of driving ever, and if that was any cop reading this May 12 south from Dorchester in a real hurry through thick traffic. You were Brilliant!
I was in the U.K. for a month and saw about two police cars. They can't be everywhere, and that's down to politicians who decide how many to have. That said I saw the best bit of driving ever, and if that was any cop reading this May 12 south from Dorchester in a real hurry through thick traffic. You were Brilliant! AdelaidePete
  • Score: 6

7:22am Fri 25 Jul 14

Bournemouth Ohec says...

It's generally considered by many that driving standards are poor, but when questioned, an individual is likely to say that their driving is better than average.

Many people go for lessons in all kinds of hobbies and activities, but when was the last time you had your own driving standards checked?
It's generally considered by many that driving standards are poor, but when questioned, an individual is likely to say that their driving is better than average. Many people go for lessons in all kinds of hobbies and activities, but when was the last time you had your own driving standards checked? Bournemouth Ohec
  • Score: 8

8:29am Fri 25 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers? tbpoole
  • Score: 3

8:41am Fri 25 Jul 14

Wesoblind says...

Its people simple as that, people just have no concept of morality.

I got swore at and tailgated by a white van because i let someone cross the road and it held him up 20 seconds.

I also on monday was on the wessex way doing the silly 50 mph in the outside lane and someone on the inside lane 50 meters ahead doing 40 mph decided to startpulling across, no indicator and no reason as they had no slower carahead and no on ramp coming, it was purely because they didnt want to get overtaken. Then they sat there doing 40 right up to blackwater then pulled across two lanes off.

This is the problem people are dumb and getting worse so police that and prosecute in EVERY collision as someone is ALWAYS at fault!
Its people simple as that, people just have no concept of morality. I got swore at and tailgated by a white van because i let someone cross the road and it held him up 20 seconds. I also on monday was on the wessex way doing the silly 50 mph in the outside lane and someone on the inside lane 50 meters ahead doing 40 mph decided to startpulling across, no indicator and no reason as they had no slower carahead and no on ramp coming, it was purely because they didnt want to get overtaken. Then they sat there doing 40 right up to blackwater then pulled across two lanes off. This is the problem people are dumb and getting worse so police that and prosecute in EVERY collision as someone is ALWAYS at fault! Wesoblind
  • Score: 7

9:04am Fri 25 Jul 14

MCAME1989 says...

“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

How the hell does not wearing a seat belt cause an accident!?
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. How the hell does not wearing a seat belt cause an accident!? MCAME1989
  • Score: -4

9:12am Fri 25 Jul 14

suzigirl says...

Greatstuff wrote:
So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.
What about old cyclists then?
[quote][p][bold]Greatstuff[/bold] wrote: So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.[/p][/quote]What about old cyclists then? suzigirl
  • Score: -4

9:33am Fri 25 Jul 14

George Bowling says...

The places Dorset Constabulary choose to put their mobile speed cameras seem to be a little confusing in this respect. On at least a couple of occasions this year (especially early on a Sunday morning), the Dorset Amateur Photographic Society have chosen to place their camera just around the only corner on Hoburne Lane in Highcliffe. The speed limit on this piece of road was recently reduced from 40mph to 30mph due to the fact school children walk along it Monday to Friday (I can never recall any accidents on this wide piece of road). This doesn't seem the best place to use their limited resources if they were serious about preventing serious accidents.
The places Dorset Constabulary choose to put their mobile speed cameras seem to be a little confusing in this respect. On at least a couple of occasions this year (especially early on a Sunday morning), the Dorset Amateur Photographic Society have chosen to place their camera just around the only corner on Hoburne Lane in Highcliffe. The speed limit on this piece of road was recently reduced from 40mph to 30mph due to the fact school children walk along it Monday to Friday (I can never recall any accidents on this wide piece of road). This doesn't seem the best place to use their limited resources if they were serious about preventing serious accidents. George Bowling
  • Score: 4

9:36am Fri 25 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Secada83 wrote:
No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits
Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'.

Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.
[quote][p][bold]Secada83[/bold] wrote: No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits[/p][/quote]Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'. Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

9:39am Fri 25 Jul 14

a.g.o.g. says...

With Dorset being ``Holiday-ville`` to many drivers it shouldn`t be surprising that the road accident tally is higher than average and, along with the fact that many fatal accidents sadly involve motorcyclists who remain near untouched by cameras or patrols, it therefore seems unlikely that additional patrolling will render any real improvent save to the pay packets of the Force.
With Dorset being ``Holiday-ville`` to many drivers it shouldn`t be surprising that the road accident tally is higher than average and, along with the fact that many fatal accidents sadly involve motorcyclists who remain near untouched by cameras or patrols, it therefore seems unlikely that additional patrolling will render any real improvent save to the pay packets of the Force. a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

9:45am Fri 25 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100.

Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people.

Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money?

When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme.

This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?[/p][/quote]That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100. Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people. Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money? When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme. This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 4

9:47am Fri 25 Jul 14

rayc says...

Perhaps Dorset Roadsafe and the Dorset Police No Excuse Project are part of the problem. Concentrating on the easy to detect whilst policing the statistically dangerous A31 and A35 trunk roads is ignored.
As regards to speed a little perspective is required. The speed limit for HGV's on single carriage way roads subject to the NSL is to increase in January next year from 40mph to 50mph. It is presumably considered so dangerous now that a HGV driver can be prosecuted for exceeding 40mph but in January next year, just by magic the limit is raised by 25%.
Perhaps Dorset Roadsafe and the Dorset Police No Excuse Project are part of the problem. Concentrating on the easy to detect whilst policing the statistically dangerous A31 and A35 trunk roads is ignored. As regards to speed a little perspective is required. The speed limit for HGV's on single carriage way roads subject to the NSL is to increase in January next year from 40mph to 50mph. It is presumably considered so dangerous now that a HGV driver can be prosecuted for exceeding 40mph but in January next year, just by magic the limit is raised by 25%. rayc
  • Score: 0

9:49am Fri 25 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Chief-Wiggum wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
Totally agree, they are always positioned where they cannot be seen until its too late and they have snapped you. If the aim is to make the roads safer and get people to not speed then they should be highly visible so people see them and realise they are going too fast and prosecute the people that totally ignore it.
'they are always positioned where they cannot be seen until its too late


That's just not fair is it?'

It seems much fairer that motorists should be given plenty of warning as to when there is definately a speed trap ahead and where it is? That makes much more sense.

(as opposed to the signs warning you well in advance that is it is a speed trap area we currently have).


Otherwise there should be hundreds of police covering thousands of roads 24/7 - how else are they to make sure there is at least some element of policing to try and catch people who have a tendency to speed (me for example) and let totting of points get them off the road or make their insurance cost hurt to the point where they are forced to slow down?
[quote][p][bold]Chief-Wiggum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]Totally agree, they are always positioned where they cannot be seen until its too late and they have snapped you. If the aim is to make the roads safer and get people to not speed then they should be highly visible so people see them and realise they are going too fast and prosecute the people that totally ignore it.[/p][/quote]'they are always positioned where they cannot be seen until its too late That's just not fair is it?' It seems much fairer that motorists should be given plenty of warning as to when there is definately a speed trap ahead and where it is? That makes much more sense. (as opposed to the signs warning you well in advance that is it is a speed trap area we currently have). Otherwise there should be hundreds of police covering thousands of roads 24/7 - how else are they to make sure there is at least some element of policing to try and catch people who have a tendency to speed (me for example) and let totting of points get them off the road or make their insurance cost hurt to the point where they are forced to slow down? scrumpyjack
  • Score: -5

9:55am Fri 25 Jul 14

rayc says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Secada83 wrote:
No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits
Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'.

Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.
I think you will find that Dorset Police are very secretive on what they do with the profit from running their Driver Awareness Courses. It is no coincidence that the criteria for attending a course has been widened considerably to entice people to take the course rather than a Fixed Penalty.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Secada83[/bold] wrote: No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits[/p][/quote]Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'. Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that Dorset Police are very secretive on what they do with the profit from running their Driver Awareness Courses. It is no coincidence that the criteria for attending a course has been widened considerably to entice people to take the course rather than a Fixed Penalty. rayc
  • Score: -4

9:57am Fri 25 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100.

Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people.

Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money?

When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme.

This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course.
Except the extra cost of policing completely wipes out any profit from the Awareness Course and actually means they make a 'loss' .

But I can just imagine NHS Trust Heads / LV= Directors / Judges / Chief Constables / Local Authority Leaders all in a room with the blinds drawn rubbing their hands waiting to count out all their profits and back handers only to find there isn't any. Ah what a picture.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?[/p][/quote]That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100. Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people. Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money? When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme. This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course.[/p][/quote]Except the extra cost of policing completely wipes out any profit from the Awareness Course and actually means they make a 'loss' . But I can just imagine NHS Trust Heads / LV= Directors / Judges / Chief Constables / Local Authority Leaders all in a room with the blinds drawn rubbing their hands waiting to count out all their profits and back handers only to find there isn't any. Ah what a picture. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

10:01am Fri 25 Jul 14

folkprotector says...

Old Colonial wrote:
Bournemouth Ohec wrote:
I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly.

Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car.

I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on.

There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.
I'll go along with that. On a recent round trip to Yorkshire I did not see a single marked police car on any class of road I used. Seems to be a thing of the past.
... but how many policemen saw you?
[quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournemouth Ohec[/bold] wrote: I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly. Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car. I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on. There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.[/p][/quote]I'll go along with that. On a recent round trip to Yorkshire I did not see a single marked police car on any class of road I used. Seems to be a thing of the past.[/p][/quote]... but how many policemen saw you? folkprotector
  • Score: -4

10:02am Fri 25 Jul 14

Hawkstone says...

Victor_Meldrew_Lives
!
wrote:
There are more accidents because there are more cars on the roads!!
More and more people coming into the country making the roads more congested.
Also driving standards - particularly in Eastern Europe - are poor. Lots of foreign cars on the road possibly poorly maintained.
I have to agree, the sheer number of vehicles the road is enormous. As a result people are more hasty, bad tempered and in a rush. When I moved into my home 25 years ago everyone had their car in their garage or on the drive. Now most of the houses near me have at least two vehicles , none in the garage and are parked both sides of the residential street I live in. Along with that are the many works vans...transits, mercs etc also parked overnight. The parking is horrific and it is very dangerous for pedestrians and children at points. I drive a lot and also hold a full bike licence. The roads are a scary place to be sometimes especIally when you get the idiots who think they are Lewis Hamilton. Accidents or incidents, whatever you want to call them are sadly inevitable.
[quote][p][bold]Victor_Meldrew_Lives ![/bold] wrote: There are more accidents because there are more cars on the roads!! More and more people coming into the country making the roads more congested. Also driving standards - particularly in Eastern Europe - are poor. Lots of foreign cars on the road possibly poorly maintained.[/p][/quote]I have to agree, the sheer number of vehicles the road is enormous. As a result people are more hasty, bad tempered and in a rush. When I moved into my home 25 years ago everyone had their car in their garage or on the drive. Now most of the houses near me have at least two vehicles , none in the garage and are parked both sides of the residential street I live in. Along with that are the many works vans...transits, mercs etc also parked overnight. The parking is horrific and it is very dangerous for pedestrians and children at points. I drive a lot and also hold a full bike licence. The roads are a scary place to be sometimes especIally when you get the idiots who think they are Lewis Hamilton. Accidents or incidents, whatever you want to call them are sadly inevitable. Hawkstone
  • Score: 4

10:16am Fri 25 Jul 14

folkprotector says...

Tango Charlie wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Bournesouthmouth Downpokes wrote:
High Treason wrote:
The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.
The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer.
I'm sorry I seem to have misundertood you, you'll laugh but I read that as if we all drove automatics most of the problems on the road would disappear.


I know, you can't imagine how foolish I felt,
Amazingly there is a grain of truth in there. For those who remembers the advice from the highway code about 2 hands on the wheel, not having to remove your hand to change gear allows you to do just that. This allows for better control. Of course, this does not stop all the problems though. Having driven German Police cars at speed I can attest that the handling of an automatic was better on the bends than the British alternatives.
Most cars, pickups and SUVs in the States are automatics. Their accident and road death rates are appalling!
[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournesouthmouth Downpokes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: The problem has been created by not enforcing all laws for decades. Once it was illegal to ride a bike without lights, on a pavement and cars obstructing footpaths. You would be fined for the above along with bad language in a public place and being drunk and disorderly. We therefore have those who have got away in the past and still think they can do so now. Zero tolerance for a few years would change that but to much paperwork and to few police.[/p][/quote]The problem is British society as a whole, fast driving on over crowded roads built for 1960's traffic is seen as the norm. If we weren't conditioned into thinking manual gear shift is what we need to be driving and instead the majority of us drove automatic then the roads would be a lot safer.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry I seem to have misundertood you, you'll laugh but I read that as if we all drove automatics most of the problems on the road would disappear. I know, you can't imagine how foolish I felt,[/p][/quote]Amazingly there is a grain of truth in there. For those who remembers the advice from the highway code about 2 hands on the wheel, not having to remove your hand to change gear allows you to do just that. This allows for better control. Of course, this does not stop all the problems though. Having driven German Police cars at speed I can attest that the handling of an automatic was better on the bends than the British alternatives.[/p][/quote]Most cars, pickups and SUVs in the States are automatics. Their accident and road death rates are appalling! folkprotector
  • Score: -1

10:19am Fri 25 Jul 14

folkprotector says...

BigAlfromsunnyBourne
mouth
wrote:
It's no coincidence that Dorset has the worst roads in the country by a country mile, driving west through Dorset from the East, the dual carriageway effectively stops as you get into Dorset and doesn't really get going again until Devon apart from the bit from Bere Regis to Dorchester. Going north the situation is even more dreadful, our main road north is the A350 which frankly is appalling and little better than a cart track.

Factually the safest roads in the country are motorways, we haven't got any motorways or anything that resembles one, for people to drive safely we need a dual carriageway right across the county and that is the root cause of the problem. Of course it will never get built because there would be too many objections.
The better drivers are the ones who adapt their driving to the conditions in which they find themselves.
[quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: It's no coincidence that Dorset has the worst roads in the country by a country mile, driving west through Dorset from the East, the dual carriageway effectively stops as you get into Dorset and doesn't really get going again until Devon apart from the bit from Bere Regis to Dorchester. Going north the situation is even more dreadful, our main road north is the A350 which frankly is appalling and little better than a cart track. Factually the safest roads in the country are motorways, we haven't got any motorways or anything that resembles one, for people to drive safely we need a dual carriageway right across the county and that is the root cause of the problem. Of course it will never get built because there would be too many objections.[/p][/quote]The better drivers are the ones who adapt their driving to the conditions in which they find themselves. folkprotector
  • Score: 5

10:27am Fri 25 Jul 14

folkprotector says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100.

Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people.

Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money?

When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme.

This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course.
Coope Dean camera... people braking because they were breaking the speed limit! That's the issue, not the camera.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?[/p][/quote]That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100. Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people. Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money? When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme. This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course.[/p][/quote]Coope Dean camera... people braking because they were breaking the speed limit! That's the issue, not the camera. folkprotector
  • Score: 2

10:35am Fri 25 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

Old Colonial wrote:
Bournemouth Ohec wrote:
I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly.

Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car.

I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on.

There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.
I'll go along with that. On a recent round trip to Yorkshire I did not see a single marked police car on any class of road I used. Seems to be a thing of the past.
They are all in a queue
outside the cake shop you know
they never do a tap in Derbyshire you know
I've seen more sweat on a wood louse
[quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournemouth Ohec[/bold] wrote: I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly. Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car. I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on. There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.[/p][/quote]I'll go along with that. On a recent round trip to Yorkshire I did not see a single marked police car on any class of road I used. Seems to be a thing of the past.[/p][/quote]They are all in a queue outside the cake shop you know they never do a tap in Derbyshire you know I've seen more sweat on a wood louse nickynoodah
  • Score: -2

10:48am Fri 25 Jul 14

Peroni says...

Bournemouth Ohec wrote:
I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly.

Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car.

I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on.

There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.
Have you seen how many unmarked police cars are in this area ?
Lots of silver estate BMWs , and others.
They just like to be sneaky !
Pity they don't come out and protect the streets and people's property at night time .
[quote][p][bold]Bournemouth Ohec[/bold] wrote: I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly. Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car. I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on. There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.[/p][/quote]Have you seen how many unmarked police cars are in this area ? Lots of silver estate BMWs , and others. They just like to be sneaky ! Pity they don't come out and protect the streets and people's property at night time . Peroni
  • Score: -4

11:21am Fri 25 Jul 14

Hurn08 says...

'No excuses' unless you're an uninsured, untaxed traveller, then the Police will just turn a blind eye in the hope you go away so they can concentrate on nabbing those people that actually pay their wages.
'No excuses' unless you're an uninsured, untaxed traveller, then the Police will just turn a blind eye in the hope you go away so they can concentrate on nabbing those people that actually pay their wages. Hurn08
  • Score: 4

11:39am Fri 25 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Peroni wrote:
Bournemouth Ohec wrote:
I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly.

Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car.

I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on.

There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.
Have you seen how many unmarked police cars are in this area ?
Lots of silver estate BMWs , and others.
They just like to be sneaky !
Pity they don't come out and protect the streets and people's property at night time .
1 officer per street perhaps?
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bournemouth Ohec[/bold] wrote: I used to drive 30-40,000 miles a year and used to see police patrol cars regularly. Nowadays I can drive 200 miles and not see a single marked police car. I see lots of people on the phone, tailgating, not indicating (Oh, that would include a marked police car I did see which also cut up a motorist), and so on. There is no real deterrent out there stopping people driving badly.[/p][/quote]Have you seen how many unmarked police cars are in this area ? Lots of silver estate BMWs , and others. They just like to be sneaky ! Pity they don't come out and protect the streets and people's property at night time .[/p][/quote]1 officer per street perhaps? scrumpyjack
  • Score: -3

11:41am Fri 25 Jul 14

rayc says...

You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.”
What has gone wrong since those not so far off days?
You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.” What has gone wrong since those not so far off days? rayc
  • Score: 5

12:15pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Staynor66 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Secada83 wrote: No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits
Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'. Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.
If it is a business it can only make money from people who wish to invest in it by driving outside the limits.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Secada83[/bold] wrote: No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits[/p][/quote]Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'. Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.[/p][/quote]If it is a business it can only make money from people who wish to invest in it by driving outside the limits. Staynor66
  • Score: -2

12:24pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Some people are pathetic says...

HRH of Boscombe wrote:
'No Excuses'! Or what??
.
The law is a joke. We saw yesterday how a guy kills someone in a 'Hit and Run' but still avoids jail.
.
Brand it whatever you like. No one really takes the Police seriously these days.
But that court result wasn't the polices fault. That's the courts and CPS
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: 'No Excuses'! Or what?? . The law is a joke. We saw yesterday how a guy kills someone in a 'Hit and Run' but still avoids jail. . Brand it whatever you like. No one really takes the Police seriously these days.[/p][/quote]But that court result wasn't the polices fault. That's the courts and CPS Some people are pathetic
  • Score: 4

12:27pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Some people are pathetic says...

MCAME1989 wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

How the hell does not wearing a seat belt cause an accident!?
If you read about the no excuse campaign it says it's to reduce the number of people killed or injured on the roads......a seat belt is a safety feature and keeps bums in the seat and stops bodies going through windscreens
[quote][p][bold]MCAME1989[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. How the hell does not wearing a seat belt cause an accident!?[/p][/quote]If you read about the no excuse campaign it says it's to reduce the number of people killed or injured on the roads......a seat belt is a safety feature and keeps bums in the seat and stops bodies going through windscreens Some people are pathetic
  • Score: 4

12:57pm Fri 25 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Staynor66 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Secada83 wrote: No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits
Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'. Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.
If it is a business it can only make money from people who wish to invest in it by driving outside the limits.
Based on published figures it would need to write around 500 tickets each and every week to simply break even.

As a dragon (breath) I'm out.
[quote][p][bold]Staynor66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Secada83[/bold] wrote: No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits[/p][/quote]Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'. Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.[/p][/quote]If it is a business it can only make money from people who wish to invest in it by driving outside the limits.[/p][/quote]Based on published figures it would need to write around 500 tickets each and every week to simply break even. As a dragon (breath) I'm out. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -2

1:23pm Fri 25 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

folkprotector wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty.

Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?
That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100.

Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people.

Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money?

When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme.

This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course.
Coope Dean camera... people braking because they were breaking the speed limit! That's the issue, not the camera.
Were they braking the speed limit though? When seeing a camera everyones first reaction is to brake and then look down at the speed they were doing, this is often on or below the actual limit for the road but in any case the point I am trying to get across is that they couldn't give two hoots about road safety and where else is this more evident than on a straight stretch of road with a low accident rate where the speed limit drops from 70 to 50.
[quote][p][bold]folkprotector[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]The cost of the court is only £10 more than the cost of the penalty. Blimey you're not one for letting facts get in the way of your view are you?[/p][/quote]That has only been the case in the last year when the fixed penalty was raised to £100. Take the mobile camera at Cooper dean on the wessex way as an example of a cash cow. In the last 5 years there have been 5 slight accidents, 4 serious accidents and 1 fatality and that was only because the person braked and lost control because they saw the camera van so you could say that they have actually increased the death rate on that stretch of road and in that time they have nicked over 10,000 people. Now move up the road a few 100 yards and there are accidents weekly at the Blackwater Junction and yet I see no evidence there of "no excuse" or any other measures to improve road safety, so tell me, do they really care or is it just about the money? When you look at the history of speed cameras in the UK, they started as being operated by the Police, they put little back boxes on tripods in the bushes with a wire leading to their van around the corner and all the revenue went to them. Then the government saw what a cash cow it was and wanted in so they changed the law so that the fine money went to central government because they claimed that the police forces were too greedy and were positively trapping motorists for profit. So they Police knocked it on the head as there was nothing in it for them anymore. So the Camera Safety Partnership was born and its Driver Awareness Scheme. This is funded by various organisations including the Police, the council, the NHS, the courts and even Liverpool Victoria Insurance company and they no doubt divvy up the profits between them so no wonder they are so keen and pushy for drivers to take the course.[/p][/quote]Coope Dean camera... people braking because they were breaking the speed limit! That's the issue, not the camera.[/p][/quote]Were they braking the speed limit though? When seeing a camera everyones first reaction is to brake and then look down at the speed they were doing, this is often on or below the actual limit for the road but in any case the point I am trying to get across is that they couldn't give two hoots about road safety and where else is this more evident than on a straight stretch of road with a low accident rate where the speed limit drops from 70 to 50. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 3

1:26pm Fri 25 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hurn08 wrote:
'No excuses' unless you're an uninsured, untaxed traveller, then the Police will just turn a blind eye in the hope you go away so they can concentrate on nabbing those people that actually pay their wages.
Do you actually believe that?
[quote][p][bold]Hurn08[/bold] wrote: 'No excuses' unless you're an uninsured, untaxed traveller, then the Police will just turn a blind eye in the hope you go away so they can concentrate on nabbing those people that actually pay their wages.[/p][/quote]Do you actually believe that? scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

2:12pm Fri 25 Jul 14

melting pot says...

Lets just get this speed thing right shall we. Speed does not kill you. If it did you would die when the body reaches terminal velocity.

Its the sudden deceleration that kills you.
Lets just get this speed thing right shall we. Speed does not kill you. If it did you would die when the body reaches terminal velocity. Its the sudden deceleration that kills you. melting pot
  • Score: 2

5:04pm Fri 25 Jul 14

folkprotector says...

melting pot wrote:
Lets just get this speed thing right shall we. Speed does not kill you. If it did you would die when the body reaches terminal velocity.

Its the sudden deceleration that kills you.
the sudden deceleration from a higher speed is usually more damaging than from a lower speed: it's the driver's to choose the speed at which they drive, relative to the road conditions. Every driver takes calculated risks every time they drive. Some drivers are prepared to take more risks than others, and when they do that they are risking injury or death. When it's only themselves that's one thing. When they increase the risk for other road users and those others are unwilling participants it's irresponsible.
[quote][p][bold]melting pot[/bold] wrote: Lets just get this speed thing right shall we. Speed does not kill you. If it did you would die when the body reaches terminal velocity. Its the sudden deceleration that kills you.[/p][/quote]the sudden deceleration from a higher speed is usually more damaging than from a lower speed: it's the driver's to choose the speed at which they drive, relative to the road conditions. Every driver takes calculated risks every time they drive. Some drivers are prepared to take more risks than others, and when they do that they are risking injury or death. When it's only themselves that's one thing. When they increase the risk for other road users and those others are unwilling participants it's irresponsible. folkprotector
  • Score: 1

6:11pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Minty Fresh says...

tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?
Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you.
When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals.
Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?[/p][/quote]Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you. When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals. Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect. Minty Fresh
  • Score: -3

6:44pm Fri 25 Jul 14

davecook says...

It would be interesting to see if the police abandoned the no excuse campaign if accidents and deaths dropped, after all, the more they do, the more the accident figures just go up. But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road, when the actual speed related deaths are usually by people driving way over the limit.
It would be interesting to see if the police abandoned the no excuse campaign if accidents and deaths dropped, after all, the more they do, the more the accident figures just go up. But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road, when the actual speed related deaths are usually by people driving way over the limit. davecook
  • Score: -1

8:50pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Hobad1 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
So? That's nothing to do with the Police.

Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have.

Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point.

Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?
Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.
And end with name calling. Brilliant,

Bravo.
Lol. Scrumpy......every "discussion" we've ever had on here has ended up with you calling me names. Seems you don't know how to present an argument, or are just very forgetful. Hessenford.....well said, your points make sense, dumpyjacks don't.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.[/p][/quote]So? That's nothing to do with the Police. Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have. Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point. Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?[/p][/quote]Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.[/p][/quote]And end with name calling. Brilliant, Bravo.[/p][/quote]Lol. Scrumpy......every "discussion" we've ever had on here has ended up with you calling me names. Seems you don't know how to present an argument, or are just very forgetful. Hessenford.....well said, your points make sense, dumpyjacks don't. Hobad1
  • Score: -1

10:55pm Fri 25 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

davecook wrote:
It would be interesting to see if the police abandoned the no excuse campaign if accidents and deaths dropped, after all, the more they do, the more the accident figures just go up. But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road, when the actual speed related deaths are usually by people driving way over the limit.
Oh I see, I didn't realise it was the police's fault all these drivers were crashing. Silly me, thinking it was the drivers who were to blame!
[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to see if the police abandoned the no excuse campaign if accidents and deaths dropped, after all, the more they do, the more the accident figures just go up. But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road, when the actual speed related deaths are usually by people driving way over the limit.[/p][/quote]Oh I see, I didn't realise it was the police's fault all these drivers were crashing. Silly me, thinking it was the drivers who were to blame! tbpoole
  • Score: -3

10:57pm Fri 25 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.”
What has gone wrong since those not so far off days?
But it didn't drop to 10 in 2010.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.” What has gone wrong since those not so far off days?[/p][/quote]But it didn't drop to 10 in 2010. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

11:02pm Fri 25 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Secada83 wrote:
No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits
Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'.

Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.
I think you will find that Dorset Police are very secretive on what they do with the profit from running their Driver Awareness Courses. It is no coincidence that the criteria for attending a course has been widened considerably to entice people to take the course rather than a Fixed Penalty.
I think you'll find you are spouting your unusual nonsense. If you follow my link further up the page it sets out exactly how DAS has been costed. People don't HAVE to take the course, they can choose not to.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Secada83[/bold] wrote: No Excuse! Total joke why don't they re name it No Excuse Ltd as this is only a way of generating extra profits[/p][/quote]Except it doesn't make them any 'profit'. Otherwise a brilliant, well constructed post.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that Dorset Police are very secretive on what they do with the profit from running their Driver Awareness Courses. It is no coincidence that the criteria for attending a course has been widened considerably to entice people to take the course rather than a Fixed Penalty.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find you are spouting your unusual nonsense. If you follow my link further up the page it sets out exactly how DAS has been costed. People don't HAVE to take the course, they can choose not to. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

8:42am Sat 26 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?
Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you.
When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals.
Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.
Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads?

As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes.

Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?[/p][/quote]Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you. When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals. Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.[/p][/quote]Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads? As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes. Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:48am Sat 26 Jul 14

Minty Fresh says...

tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?
Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you.
When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals.
Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.
Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads?

As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes.

Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.
Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?[/p][/quote]Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you. When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals. Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.[/p][/quote]Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads? As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes. Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.[/p][/quote]Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you. Minty Fresh
  • Score: -1

12:00pm Sat 26 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
So? That's nothing to do with the Police.

Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have.

Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point.

Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?
Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.
And end with name calling. Brilliant,

Bravo.
Lol. Scrumpy......every "discussion" we've ever had on here has ended up with you calling me names. Seems you don't know how to present an argument, or are just very forgetful. Hessenford.....well said, your points make sense, dumpyjacks don't.
Please feel free to elaborate as to why my points don't make sense. I would be very interested, it's so nice of you to take an interest I would hate to think you were just saying that for effect.....
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.[/p][/quote]So? That's nothing to do with the Police. Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have. Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point. Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?[/p][/quote]Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.[/p][/quote]And end with name calling. Brilliant, Bravo.[/p][/quote]Lol. Scrumpy......every "discussion" we've ever had on here has ended up with you calling me names. Seems you don't know how to present an argument, or are just very forgetful. Hessenford.....well said, your points make sense, dumpyjacks don't.[/p][/quote]Please feel free to elaborate as to why my points don't make sense. I would be very interested, it's so nice of you to take an interest I would hate to think you were just saying that for effect..... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Sat 26 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?
Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you.
When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals.
Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.
Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads?

As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes.

Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.
Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you.
No I don't work for Dscp. Been caught speeding have we minty fresh? You just aren't responding to my points and being aggressive isn't going to win the argument.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?[/p][/quote]Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you. When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals. Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.[/p][/quote]Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads? As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes. Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.[/p][/quote]Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you.[/p][/quote]No I don't work for Dscp. Been caught speeding have we minty fresh? You just aren't responding to my points and being aggressive isn't going to win the argument. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

12:43pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Minty Fresh says...

tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?
Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you.
When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals.
Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.
Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads?

As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes.

Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.
Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you.
No I don't work for Dscp. Been caught speeding have we minty fresh? You just aren't responding to my points and being aggressive isn't going to win the argument.
You're mistaking aggressive for being right and I don't need to respond to your points as they are all mute. Anyone with any common sense can see that the DSCP are revenue generation driven only. And no I haven't been caught speeding, I just detest the disgusting tactics used by the DSCP to catch out unsuspecting motorists.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?[/p][/quote]Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you. When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals. Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.[/p][/quote]Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads? As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes. Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.[/p][/quote]Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you.[/p][/quote]No I don't work for Dscp. Been caught speeding have we minty fresh? You just aren't responding to my points and being aggressive isn't going to win the argument.[/p][/quote]You're mistaking aggressive for being right and I don't need to respond to your points as they are all mute. Anyone with any common sense can see that the DSCP are revenue generation driven only. And no I haven't been caught speeding, I just detest the disgusting tactics used by the DSCP to catch out unsuspecting motorists. Minty Fresh
  • Score: -2

2:18pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Rally says...

davecook wrote:
It would be interesting to see if the police abandoned the no excuse campaign if accidents and deaths dropped, after all, the more they do, the more the accident figures just go up. But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road, when the actual speed related deaths are usually by people driving way over the limit.
Quote: 'But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road,' Unquote.

Let's take an empty, straight stretch of road with a posted speed limit at 30mph.
How many mph above 30 would be acceptable to you, davecook,?
31? 32? 33? How about 34?
Hmm, if 34 is acceptable, then what would be wrong with 35?
Then, of course, 1mph makes little or no difference, does it - so why not go for 36?
And so on, and so on.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere.
Whatever speed limit is imposed by the authorities will be unacceptable to the majority of us drivers because we always know better than these authorities (who are often faceless) what is the best speed limit for any given road under any given condition that we are travelling.
That the majority of us motorists will disagree over what any posted speed limit should be is, of course, neither here nor there.

Let's all be completely honest here; this is not about the Police - or any other authority - making money out of us poor motorists; it is about most of us not liking to be told the maximum speed we can drive at, or being told to 'belt up', or not being allowed to drive when intoxicated, or not being allowed to use a mobile phone when driving, etc., etc., etc.
It is time that the relevant authorities realised that it is a God-given right for us motorists to drive how we like, when we like, where we like and AS FAST AS WE LIKE!
Telling us poor and hapless motorists to abide by The Highway Code is cruel and unusual behaviour and a blatant contravention of our Human Rights.
And don't get me started on those accursed 20mph zones.
There are three such zones near where I live and they each rob me of at least 7.38 seconds of valuable Life per day!
How much more deplorable can these draconian anti-motorist situations possibly get, I ask myself.
. . . it is all so utterly depressing . . .
I must go to 'DorsetSpeed' a.s.a.p. for counselling ;)
[quote][p][bold]davecook[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to see if the police abandoned the no excuse campaign if accidents and deaths dropped, after all, the more they do, the more the accident figures just go up. But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road, when the actual speed related deaths are usually by people driving way over the limit.[/p][/quote]Quote: 'But we all know there is no profit in not fining people who transgress by a few mph on an open road,' Unquote. Let's take an empty, straight stretch of road with a posted speed limit at 30mph. How many mph above 30 would be acceptable to you, davecook,? 31? 32? 33? How about 34? Hmm, if 34 is acceptable, then what would be wrong with 35? Then, of course, 1mph makes little or no difference, does it - so why not go for 36? And so on, and so on. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Whatever speed limit is imposed by the authorities will be unacceptable to the majority of us drivers because we always know better than these authorities (who are often faceless) what is the best speed limit for any given road under any given condition that we are travelling. That the majority of us motorists will disagree over what any posted speed limit should be is, of course, neither here nor there. Let's all be completely honest here; this is not about the Police - or any other authority - making money out of us poor motorists; it is about most of us not liking to be told the maximum speed we can drive at, or being told to 'belt up', or not being allowed to drive when intoxicated, or not being allowed to use a mobile phone when driving, etc., etc., etc. It is time that the relevant authorities realised that it is a God-given right for us motorists to drive how we like, when we like, where we like and AS FAST AS WE LIKE! Telling us poor and hapless motorists to abide by The Highway Code is cruel and unusual behaviour and a blatant contravention of our Human Rights. And don't get me started on those accursed 20mph zones. There are three such zones near where I live and they each rob me of at least 7.38 seconds of valuable Life per day! How much more deplorable can these draconian anti-motorist situations possibly get, I ask myself. . . . it is all so utterly depressing . . . I must go to 'DorsetSpeed' a.s.a.p. for counselling ;) Rally
  • Score: 4

3:41pm Sat 26 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing.
Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP.
Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.
My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?
Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you.
When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals.
Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.
Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads?

As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes.

Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.
Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you.
No I don't work for Dscp. Been caught speeding have we minty fresh? You just aren't responding to my points and being aggressive isn't going to win the argument.
You're mistaking aggressive for being right and I don't need to respond to your points as they are all mute. Anyone with any common sense can see that the DSCP are revenue generation driven only. And no I haven't been caught speeding, I just detest the disgusting tactics used by the DSCP to catch out unsuspecting motorists.
Well I just counted about a dozen insults and abusive comments in your previous post. Fine if you have an opposing viewpoint, that's your prerogative but it doesn't give you the right to be abusive to those who don't agree with you. I think you are completely wrong but I refuse to stoop to your level.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: The Dor$et $af£ty $cam£ra Partn£r$hip have NEVER ever been about road safety. Their number one aim,especially a decade or so back, was always to make money from unsuspecting road users unfamiliar with the new technology these scam artists were employing. Hilarious and disgusting in equal measure that these low life parasites, posing as an official Govt backed organisation, would claim the credit when deaths on the roads fell and then claim they needed to be there because driving standards were so poor when deaths rose. What a joke you are D$CP. Seriously, it's time for the speed camera partnerships and the morons still claiming they work to be made redundant and the money saved put towards proper policing that targets serious crime and NOT the soft target motorist for profit.[/p][/quote]My god what a paranoid person you are. Many more people are killed on Dorset's roads than are murdered in the county. Why shouldn't the police target idiot drivers?[/p][/quote]Paranoid eh? Well I'd rather be that than be delusional like yourself. If you think for one minute that the DCSP are about road safety there's something wrong with you. When was the last time ANYONE saw a mobile speed camera van parked up on a quiet country lane where there had been a fatal accident or serious accident in the days/weeks before? The answer is no-one. You know why? Because there's NO PROFIT in them being sat there. That's why you always see these mobile parasites parked up on busy roads ONLY, partially hidden where possible, with the sole aim of snaring as many motorists as possible. Wake up. The DCSP is a money making scam that should be disbanded immediately and the money saved used to catch real criminals. Oh and you mention that road deaths are on the up. Well that right there proves the DCSP are utterly failing with the public agenda of "road safety" that they hide behind. Perhaps they should try a different approach that doesn't involve screwing over the people they claim they to want to protect.[/p][/quote]Firstly, how do you know there aren't mobile cameras around before/after fatal crashes? Do you spend all of your time driving around Dorset's roads? As I've said before, more people die on the roads than are murdered. Some road deaths are caused by drivers who deliberately break the law in the way that they drive. Why shouldn't the police target them? Anyway drivers who have been caught speeding are more likely to have been involved in crashes. Oh and as you are such an expert pray tell us what your wonderful solution to the problem is? You make it sound like Dorset Police are doing something different compared to other forces who carry out mobile enforcement. Well they aren't as far as I am aware.[/p][/quote]Do you work for the DSCP? The way you suck up to them is a clear sign you do! Afraid of losing your job are you? You should be. It's time you speed camera sc*m were all on the dole and the money saved spent on proper policing, you know like catching real criminals and not people driving 5mph over a deliberately reduced speed limit designed to catch them out. You DSCP parasites target the motorist for profit and hide behind a BS "safety" message. Well unfortunately for you the public has realised what you scam artists are all about and so have high profile ministers who are looking into banning your sharp practice. Run along now and troll someone else. Thank you.[/p][/quote]No I don't work for Dscp. Been caught speeding have we minty fresh? You just aren't responding to my points and being aggressive isn't going to win the argument.[/p][/quote]You're mistaking aggressive for being right and I don't need to respond to your points as they are all mute. Anyone with any common sense can see that the DSCP are revenue generation driven only. And no I haven't been caught speeding, I just detest the disgusting tactics used by the DSCP to catch out unsuspecting motorists.[/p][/quote]Well I just counted about a dozen insults and abusive comments in your previous post. Fine if you have an opposing viewpoint, that's your prerogative but it doesn't give you the right to be abusive to those who don't agree with you. I think you are completely wrong but I refuse to stoop to your level. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

7:21pm Sat 26 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hobad1 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
"The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you
Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.
Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.
What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?
Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.
So? That's nothing to do with the Police.

Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have.

Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point.

Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?
Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.
And end with name calling. Brilliant,

Bravo.
Lol. Scrumpy......every "discussion" we've ever had on here has ended up with you calling me names. Seems you don't know how to present an argument, or are just very forgetful. Hessenford.....well said, your points make sense, dumpyjacks don't.
Please feel free to elaborate as to why my points don't make sense. I would be very interested, it's so nice of you to take an interest I would hate to think you were just saying that for effect.....
So gone quiet when challenged? Nothing new there then.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: "The focus of the team will be on providing education to change driver behaviour and to save lives.” Yeah I bet it will, that education has proven to be quite an earner for you[/p][/quote]Yes but drivers can choose not to go on the course and accept the points instead. So if no-one went on the course they wouldn't take any money.[/p][/quote]Its blatantly obvious that the choice would be the course to avoid points which leads to increased insurance costs, they know that most would choose the course that why the cost is set so high.[/p][/quote]What, £10 more than if they accepted the penalty points. Not exactly set high then?[/p][/quote]Its the insurance cost that is set high especially for younger drivers.[/p][/quote]So? That's nothing to do with the Police. Also, yet again you're wrong - they (the insurers) ask if you have attended such a course and it is reflected in your premium if you have. Why not just admit you simply don't like the police and you don't like being fined? Every 'arguement' you have made has been factually incorrect and yet you still hold your view point. Whad does that demonstrate to the rest of us do you thnk?[/p][/quote]Go away troll, you bore me, I never said it was the fault of the police, you really are a complete ****.[/p][/quote]And end with name calling. Brilliant, Bravo.[/p][/quote]Lol. Scrumpy......every "discussion" we've ever had on here has ended up with you calling me names. Seems you don't know how to present an argument, or are just very forgetful. Hessenford.....well said, your points make sense, dumpyjacks don't.[/p][/quote]Please feel free to elaborate as to why my points don't make sense. I would be very interested, it's so nice of you to take an interest I would hate to think you were just saying that for effect.....[/p][/quote]So gone quiet when challenged? Nothing new there then. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

8:36pm Sat 26 Jul 14

cromwell9 says...

suzigirl wrote:
Greatstuff wrote:
So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.
What about old cyclists then?
What about young drivers then .
Raise the driving age from 17 to 21,
That would take a lot of the accidents off the road.
80 for the older folk.
Now thats common sense
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Greatstuff[/bold] wrote: So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.[/p][/quote]What about old cyclists then?[/p][/quote]What about young drivers then . Raise the driving age from 17 to 21, That would take a lot of the accidents off the road. 80 for the older folk. Now thats common sense cromwell9
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Rally says...

cromwell9 wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Greatstuff wrote:
So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.
What about old cyclists then?
What about young drivers then .
Raise the driving age from 17 to 21,
That would take a lot of the accidents off the road.
80 for the older folk.
Now thats common sense
Clearly Greatstuff is one of those motorists who is not only persistently impatient when driving, but also lacks the ability to overtake another vehicle safely.
Sadly, the likes of Greatstuff are in the majority these days.
[quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Greatstuff[/bold] wrote: So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.[/p][/quote]What about old cyclists then?[/p][/quote]What about young drivers then . Raise the driving age from 17 to 21, That would take a lot of the accidents off the road. 80 for the older folk. Now thats common sense[/p][/quote]Clearly Greatstuff is one of those motorists who is not only persistently impatient when driving, but also lacks the ability to overtake another vehicle safely. Sadly, the likes of Greatstuff are in the majority these days. Rally
  • Score: 3

12:36pm Sun 27 Jul 14

u.c.k.o.f.f. says...

EddieVH wrote:
I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective?

Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach.

I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'.
fortysecond that
[quote][p][bold]EddieVH[/bold] wrote: I await the inevitable downvotes, but if the rate of fatalities on Dorset roads continues to increase despite the Police's No Excuses campaign, doesn't that show that it is ineffective? Surely rather than pouring more money into the same, apparently ineffective, scheme they should re-evaluate their approach. I suggest that No Excuses is (self-evidently) a nice little earner for the Force, and little more than high profile 'Safety Theatre'.[/p][/quote]fortysecond that u.c.k.o.f.f.
  • Score: -2

12:38pm Sun 27 Jul 14

u.c.k.o.f.f. says...

Hessenford wrote:
Controversial But True wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
“They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.
It's the losing control as you struggle to fit the seatbelt when you see a yellow high-viz jacket close ahead - only to find it's one of those useless PSCOs!!
Good excuse.
hahahahahahahahahaha
haha haaaaaaaa
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: “They will be focusing on known causes of collisions on our roads, which are speeding, careless driving, using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While I agree that most of the above causes accidents I have to wonder how, not wearing a seat belt, causes accidents.[/p][/quote]It's the losing control as you struggle to fit the seatbelt when you see a yellow high-viz jacket close ahead - only to find it's one of those useless PSCOs!![/p][/quote]Good excuse.[/p][/quote]hahahahahahahahahaha haha haaaaaaaa u.c.k.o.f.f.
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Sun 27 Jul 14

u.c.k.o.f.f. says...

Rally wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Greatstuff wrote:
So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.
What about old cyclists then?
What about young drivers then .
Raise the driving age from 17 to 21,
That would take a lot of the accidents off the road.
80 for the older folk.
Now thats common sense
Clearly Greatstuff is one of those motorists who is not only persistently impatient when driving, but also lacks the ability to overtake another vehicle safely.
Sadly, the likes of Greatstuff are in the majority these days.
Nothing impatient about wanting to get there on time and it is a real t . w,t
being stuck behind some witless fwit who you wouldnt trust on a skateboard let alone behind the wheel of the instrument of their own ultimate demise. Sad but true.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Greatstuff[/bold] wrote: So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.[/p][/quote]What about old cyclists then?[/p][/quote]What about young drivers then . Raise the driving age from 17 to 21, That would take a lot of the accidents off the road. 80 for the older folk. Now thats common sense[/p][/quote]Clearly Greatstuff is one of those motorists who is not only persistently impatient when driving, but also lacks the ability to overtake another vehicle safely. Sadly, the likes of Greatstuff are in the majority these days.[/p][/quote]Nothing impatient about wanting to get there on time and it is a real t . w,t being stuck behind some witless fwit who you wouldnt trust on a skateboard let alone behind the wheel of the instrument of their own ultimate demise. Sad but true. u.c.k.o.f.f.
  • Score: -1

2:41pm Sun 27 Jul 14

rayc says...

tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.”
What has gone wrong since those not so far off days?
But it didn't drop to 10 in 2010.
But that is the number claimed by the Police to reduce their traffic Officer numbers .I know they now claim it was 18 but 10 was the number claimed by Superintendent Hiles. If the reduction in fatalities was even less than they claimed then their reason for dropping the number of traffic officers is even more suspect.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.” What has gone wrong since those not so far off days?[/p][/quote]But it didn't drop to 10 in 2010.[/p][/quote]But that is the number claimed by the Police to reduce their traffic Officer numbers .I know they now claim it was 18 but 10 was the number claimed by Superintendent Hiles. If the reduction in fatalities was even less than they claimed then their reason for dropping the number of traffic officers is even more suspect. rayc
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Rally says...

u.c.k.o.f.f. wrote:
Rally wrote:
cromwell9 wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Greatstuff wrote:
So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.
What about old cyclists then?
What about young drivers then .
Raise the driving age from 17 to 21,
That would take a lot of the accidents off the road.
80 for the older folk.
Now thats common sense
Clearly Greatstuff is one of those motorists who is not only persistently impatient when driving, but also lacks the ability to overtake another vehicle safely.
Sadly, the likes of Greatstuff are in the majority these days.
Nothing impatient about wanting to get there on time and it is a real t . w,t
being stuck behind some witless fwit who you wouldnt trust on a skateboard let alone behind the wheel of the instrument of their own ultimate demise. Sad but true.
u.c.k.o.f.f. wrote: 'Nothing impatient about wanting to get there on time and it is a real t . w,t being stuck behind some witless fwit who you wouldnt trust on a skateboard let alone behind the wheel of the instrument of their own ultimate demise. Sad but true.'

Well, u.c.k.o.f.f., as you appear to encounter motorists who drive too slowly by your lights quite frequently, perhaps you should make allowances for their tortoise-like progress and consider quite seriously starting your journeys minutes earlier than you do at present - it would certainly cause you less stress and perhaps even sweeten your attitude in general towards motorists older than yourself (I refer, of course, to your mental age, which I put at around an-immature-17 years).
[quote][p][bold]u.c.k.o.f.f.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cromwell9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Greatstuff[/bold] wrote: So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.[/p][/quote]What about old cyclists then?[/p][/quote]What about young drivers then . Raise the driving age from 17 to 21, That would take a lot of the accidents off the road. 80 for the older folk. Now thats common sense[/p][/quote]Clearly Greatstuff is one of those motorists who is not only persistently impatient when driving, but also lacks the ability to overtake another vehicle safely. Sadly, the likes of Greatstuff are in the majority these days.[/p][/quote]Nothing impatient about wanting to get there on time and it is a real t . w,t being stuck behind some witless fwit who you wouldnt trust on a skateboard let alone behind the wheel of the instrument of their own ultimate demise. Sad but true.[/p][/quote]u.c.k.o.f.f. wrote: 'Nothing impatient about wanting to get there on time and it is a real t . w,t being stuck behind some witless fwit who you wouldnt trust on a skateboard let alone behind the wheel of the instrument of their own ultimate demise. Sad but true.' Well, u.c.k.o.f.f., as you appear to encounter motorists who drive too slowly by your lights quite frequently, perhaps you should make allowances for their tortoise-like progress and consider quite seriously starting your journeys minutes earlier than you do at present - it would certainly cause you less stress and perhaps even sweeten your attitude in general towards motorists older than yourself (I refer, of course, to your mental age, which I put at around an-immature-17 years). Rally
  • Score: 2

10:48pm Sun 27 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.”
What has gone wrong since those not so far off days?
But it didn't drop to 10 in 2010.
But that is the number claimed by the Police to reduce their traffic Officer numbers .I know they now claim it was 18 but 10 was the number claimed by Superintendent Hiles. If the reduction in fatalities was even less than they claimed then their reason for dropping the number of traffic officers is even more suspect.
They don't 'now claim', that is the correct figure reported by the DfT. Perhaps a bit of echo misquoting first time around? The numbers were probably cut because of imposed budget cuts. Does that mean their numbers can never be expanded again to meet increased demand? Obviously in your book it is a sign of betrayal rather than dealing with a fluctuating problem.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: You could be excused for being confused. Two years ago in this paper Dorset police announced they were cutting their Traffic Officers by a third, from 54 to 36. Dorset Police said "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.” What has gone wrong since those not so far off days?[/p][/quote]But it didn't drop to 10 in 2010.[/p][/quote]But that is the number claimed by the Police to reduce their traffic Officer numbers .I know they now claim it was 18 but 10 was the number claimed by Superintendent Hiles. If the reduction in fatalities was even less than they claimed then their reason for dropping the number of traffic officers is even more suspect.[/p][/quote]They don't 'now claim', that is the correct figure reported by the DfT. Perhaps a bit of echo misquoting first time around? The numbers were probably cut because of imposed budget cuts. Does that mean their numbers can never be expanded again to meet increased demand? Obviously in your book it is a sign of betrayal rather than dealing with a fluctuating problem. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

11:03pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Huey says...

What about that local copper a few years back who died after using his phone and driving into the side of a building when speeding to work?
Get his mugshot out there
NO EXCUSES
What about that local copper a few years back who died after using his phone and driving into the side of a building when speeding to work? Get his mugshot out there NO EXCUSES Huey
  • Score: -1

7:00pm Mon 28 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Huey wrote:
What about that local copper a few years back who died after using his phone and driving into the side of a building when speeding to work?
Get his mugshot out there
NO EXCUSES
What a stupid, nasty thing to say.
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: What about that local copper a few years back who died after using his phone and driving into the side of a building when speeding to work? Get his mugshot out there NO EXCUSES[/p][/quote]What a stupid, nasty thing to say. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Mon 28 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

12:01am Tue 29 Jul 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed.
This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?'
And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website.
Just post here the 'of what' figure.

7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many.
Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about. Rally
  • Score: -1

7:12am Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk
Let's face it just because it didn't go your way you are bleating. Just accept defeat and move on. Next!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]Let's face it just because it didn't go your way you are bleating. Just accept defeat and move on. Next! tbpoole
  • Score: -1

7:44am Tue 29 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe


ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed.
This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?'
And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website.
Just post here the 'of what' figure.

7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many.
Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
What on earth is that all about?
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.[/p][/quote]What on earth is that all about? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:52am Tue 29 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe


ed.org.uk
Let's face it just because it didn't go your way you are bleating. Just accept defeat and move on. Next!
Dorset police concluded that Dorset police did nothing wrong, I was expecting that. Even when it played a crucial part in a fraudulent operation which made £million and despite 400 pages of waffle has STILL dodged the question "why does it need the equivalent of 10 staff on £52k to deliver the course"
Naturally it's already appealed to the ipcc
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]Let's face it just because it didn't go your way you are bleating. Just accept defeat and move on. Next![/p][/quote]Dorset police concluded that Dorset police did nothing wrong, I was expecting that. Even when it played a crucial part in a fraudulent operation which made £million and despite 400 pages of waffle has STILL dodged the question "why does it need the equivalent of 10 staff on £52k to deliver the course" Naturally it's already appealed to the ipcc dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:05am Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk
Let's face it just because it didn't go your way you are bleating. Just accept defeat and move on. Next!
Dorset police concluded that Dorset police did nothing wrong, I was expecting that. Even when it played a crucial part in a fraudulent operation which made £million and despite 400 pages of waffle has STILL dodged the question "why does it need the equivalent of 10 staff on £52k to deliver the course" Naturally it's already appealed to the ipcc
Naturally you are going to waste another £20k plus of public money asking for this appeal. When you fail again I shall be asking for a personal refund.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]Let's face it just because it didn't go your way you are bleating. Just accept defeat and move on. Next![/p][/quote]Dorset police concluded that Dorset police did nothing wrong, I was expecting that. Even when it played a crucial part in a fraudulent operation which made £million and despite 400 pages of waffle has STILL dodged the question "why does it need the equivalent of 10 staff on £52k to deliver the course" Naturally it's already appealed to the ipcc[/p][/quote]Naturally you are going to waste another £20k plus of public money asking for this appeal. When you fail again I shall be asking for a personal refund. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

8:22am Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
What on earth is that all about?
See page 174 on this DfT document:

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/269601
/rrcgb-2012-complete
.pdf

Percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast =21%.
Percentage of KSIs =15%

Tell me why the police shouldn't tackle the root cause of 380 deaths and 3,500 KSIs across GB?

As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.[/p][/quote]What on earth is that all about?[/p][/quote]See page 174 on this DfT document: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/269601 /rrcgb-2012-complete .pdf Percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast =21%. Percentage of KSIs =15% Tell me why the police shouldn't tackle the root cause of 380 deaths and 3,500 KSIs across GB? As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

8:55am Tue 29 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
What on earth is that all about?
See page 174 on this DfT document:

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/269601

/rrcgb-2012-complete

.pdf

Percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast =21%.
Percentage of KSIs =15%

Tell me why the police shouldn't tackle the root cause of 380 deaths and 3,500 KSIs across GB?

As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes.
Not root cause. It was only a factor, when other factors may have included drink, drugs, crime, racing, showing off, road rage, tailgating, distraction, inattention, etc etc.

"percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast"
"travelling too fast" is WITHIN the limit and is about the same as "exceeding the limit". This in itself helps to demonstrate that the limit is not quite the perfect solution to road safety that many seem to think it is.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.[/p][/quote]What on earth is that all about?[/p][/quote]See page 174 on this DfT document: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/269601 /rrcgb-2012-complete .pdf Percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast =21%. Percentage of KSIs =15% Tell me why the police shouldn't tackle the root cause of 380 deaths and 3,500 KSIs across GB? As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes.[/p][/quote]Not root cause. It was only a factor, when other factors may have included drink, drugs, crime, racing, showing off, road rage, tailgating, distraction, inattention, etc etc. "percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast" "travelling too fast" is WITHIN the limit and is about the same as "exceeding the limit". This in itself helps to demonstrate that the limit is not quite the perfect solution to road safety that many seem to think it is. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:17am Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
What on earth is that all about?
See page 174 on this DfT document: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/269601 /rrcgb-2012-complete .pdf Percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast =21%. Percentage of KSIs =15% Tell me why the police shouldn't tackle the root cause of 380 deaths and 3,500 KSIs across GB? As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes.
Not root cause. It was only a factor, when other factors may have included drink, drugs, crime, racing, showing off, road rage, tailgating, distraction, inattention, etc etc. "percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast" "travelling too fast" is WITHIN the limit and is about the same as "exceeding the limit". This in itself helps to demonstrate that the limit is not quite the perfect solution to road safety that many seem to think it is.
Yes, root cause. And you and I know 'travelling too fast' means likely tto have been exceeding the limit at some stage prior to the crash but not proven. Road rage usually means speeding because of frustration with other drivers going 'too slow'. Tailgaiting = car in front not going fast enough, I want to speed ahead. Distraction - if I wasn't going so fast I would have avoided the crash. And so it goes on. I'm sorry but you are completely wrong on this one.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.[/p][/quote]What on earth is that all about?[/p][/quote]See page 174 on this DfT document: https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/269601 /rrcgb-2012-complete .pdf Percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast =21%. Percentage of KSIs =15% Tell me why the police shouldn't tackle the root cause of 380 deaths and 3,500 KSIs across GB? As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes.[/p][/quote]Not root cause. It was only a factor, when other factors may have included drink, drugs, crime, racing, showing off, road rage, tailgating, distraction, inattention, etc etc. "percentage of fatalities with exceeding the limit or travelling too fast" "travelling too fast" is WITHIN the limit and is about the same as "exceeding the limit". This in itself helps to demonstrate that the limit is not quite the perfect solution to road safety that many seem to think it is.[/p][/quote]Yes, root cause. And you and I know 'travelling too fast' means likely tto have been exceeding the limit at some stage prior to the crash but not proven. Road rage usually means speeding because of frustration with other drivers going 'too slow'. Tailgaiting = car in front not going fast enough, I want to speed ahead. Distraction - if I wasn't going so fast I would have avoided the crash. And so it goes on. I'm sorry but you are completely wrong on this one. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

9:31am Tue 29 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

I see, so driving within the limit = speeding some other time
road rage =speeding
tailgating = speeding
distraction =speeding

You really are truly obsessed with it
I see, so driving within the limit = speeding some other time road rage =speeding tailgating = speeding distraction =speeding You really are truly obsessed with it dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

11:09am Tue 29 Jul 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe



ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed.
This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?'
And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website.
Just post here the 'of what' figure.

7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many.
Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
What on earth is that all about?
Once again Dorsetspeed avoids answering a direct question with the skills of a mealy-mouthed politician.

I'll now try again with the same straightforward question and request for pertinent information.
'7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure.'
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.[/p][/quote]What on earth is that all about?[/p][/quote]Once again Dorsetspeed avoids answering a direct question with the skills of a mealy-mouthed politician. I'll now try again with the same straightforward question and request for pertinent information. '7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure.' Rally
  • Score: -2

12:25pm Tue 29 Jul 14

rayc says...

tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes."
Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have?
It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused?
tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes." Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have? It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused? rayc
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Tue 29 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe




ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed.
This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?'
And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website.
Just post here the 'of what' figure.

7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many.
Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
What on earth is that all about?
Once again Dorsetspeed avoids answering a direct question with the skills of a mealy-mouthed politician.

I'll now try again with the same straightforward question and request for pertinent information.
'7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure.'
I still don't understand what you're going on about. About 7% of all ksi accidents have exceeding the limit as a factor. What do you not understand about that? Why on earth are you continuing to ask "of what"??
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.[/p][/quote]What on earth is that all about?[/p][/quote]Once again Dorsetspeed avoids answering a direct question with the skills of a mealy-mouthed politician. I'll now try again with the same straightforward question and request for pertinent information. '7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure.'[/p][/quote]I still don't understand what you're going on about. About 7% of all ksi accidents have exceeding the limit as a factor. What do you not understand about that? Why on earth are you continuing to ask "of what"?? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
I see, so driving within the limit = speeding some other time road rage =speeding tailgating = speeding distraction =speeding You really are truly obsessed with it
Obsession......A bit rich coming from someone who's profile name, raison d'etre and website is DorsetSPEED!

As is mentioned in the table on my previous link around 16% of drivers are killed as a result of involvement with drink driving, but typically only 3% of drivers will fail a breath test. I think most people will accept the need for breath testing, so why not speed enforcement as speeding has a similar impact on road death totals.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I see, so driving within the limit = speeding some other time road rage =speeding tailgating = speeding distraction =speeding You really are truly obsessed with it[/p][/quote]Obsession......A bit rich coming from someone who's profile name, raison d'etre and website is DorsetSPEED! As is mentioned in the table on my previous link around 16% of drivers are killed as a result of involvement with drink driving, but typically only 3% of drivers will fail a breath test. I think most people will accept the need for breath testing, so why not speed enforcement as speeding has a similar impact on road death totals. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

12:54pm Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes." Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have? It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused?
It's quite easy to find many examples and here is just one. This one mentions traffic violations, which by implication means speeding. And speeders get the chance to go on DAS courses.

http://www.thepsycho
logist.org.uk/archiv
e/archive_home.cfm?v
olumeID=25&editionID
=217&ArticleID=2134

"Driving violations have a long history of association with accidents. For example, Gerbers and Peck (2003) found that those drivers who have a traffic violation have a higher subsequent accident rate. In the 1990s a group of Manchester psychologists attempted to show how violations might differ from other forms of human error. They showed that errors, lapses and violations were separate factors (Reason et al., 1990). Their focus has been on the violation factor, which they have shown to be related to crash involvement (Parker et al., 1995)."
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes." Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have? It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused?[/p][/quote]It's quite easy to find many examples and here is just one. This one mentions traffic violations, which by implication means speeding. And speeders get the chance to go on DAS courses. http://www.thepsycho logist.org.uk/archiv e/archive_home.cfm?v olumeID=25&editionID =217&ArticleID=2134 "Driving violations have a long history of association with accidents. For example, Gerbers and Peck (2003) found that those drivers who have a traffic violation have a higher subsequent accident rate. In the 1990s a group of Manchester psychologists attempted to show how violations might differ from other forms of human error. They showed that errors, lapses and violations were separate factors (Reason et al., 1990). Their focus has been on the violation factor, which they have shown to be related to crash involvement (Parker et al., 1995)." tbpoole
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Tue 29 Jul 14

rayc says...

tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote:
tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes." Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have? It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused?
It's quite easy to find many examples and here is just one. This one mentions traffic violations, which by implication means speeding. And speeders get the chance to go on DAS courses.

http://www.thepsycho

logist.org.uk/archiv

e/archive_home.cfm?v

olumeID=25&editi
onID
=217&ArticleID=2
134

"Driving violations have a long history of association with accidents. For example, Gerbers and Peck (2003) found that those drivers who have a traffic violation have a higher subsequent accident rate. In the 1990s a group of Manchester psychologists attempted to show how violations might differ from other forms of human error. They showed that errors, lapses and violations were separate factors (Reason et al., 1990). Their focus has been on the violation factor, which they have shown to be related to crash involvement (Parker et al., 1995)."
So where does it say that those who have attended DAS courses in Dorset have been involved in more crashes than those who haven't?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes." Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have? It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused?[/p][/quote]It's quite easy to find many examples and here is just one. This one mentions traffic violations, which by implication means speeding. And speeders get the chance to go on DAS courses. http://www.thepsycho logist.org.uk/archiv e/archive_home.cfm?v olumeID=25&editi onID =217&ArticleID=2 134 "Driving violations have a long history of association with accidents. For example, Gerbers and Peck (2003) found that those drivers who have a traffic violation have a higher subsequent accident rate. In the 1990s a group of Manchester psychologists attempted to show how violations might differ from other forms of human error. They showed that errors, lapses and violations were separate factors (Reason et al., 1990). Their focus has been on the violation factor, which they have shown to be related to crash involvement (Parker et al., 1995)."[/p][/quote]So where does it say that those who have attended DAS courses in Dorset have been involved in more crashes than those who haven't? rayc
  • Score: -1

2:23pm Tue 29 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, I am quite happy with balanced, competent, proportionate targeting of speeding as a part of a competent, open, transparent and proven road safety plan. My obsession if you like is to move on from the obsession with speed.
tbpoole, I am quite happy with balanced, competent, proportionate targeting of speeding as a part of a competent, open, transparent and proven road safety plan. My obsession if you like is to move on from the obsession with speed. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

4:50pm Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

rayc wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
rayc wrote: tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes." Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have? It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused?
It's quite easy to find many examples and here is just one. This one mentions traffic violations, which by implication means speeding. And speeders get the chance to go on DAS courses. http://www.thepsycho logist.org.uk/archiv e/archive_home.cfm?v olumeID=25&editi onID =217&ArticleID=2 134 "Driving violations have a long history of association with accidents. For example, Gerbers and Peck (2003) found that those drivers who have a traffic violation have a higher subsequent accident rate. In the 1990s a group of Manchester psychologists attempted to show how violations might differ from other forms of human error. They showed that errors, lapses and violations were separate factors (Reason et al., 1990). Their focus has been on the violation factor, which they have shown to be related to crash involvement (Parker et al., 1995)."
So where does it say that those who have attended DAS courses in Dorset have been involved in more crashes than those who haven't?
It doesn't mention Dorset here of course because this particular research was carried out before DAS existed. And no I dont have access to Dorset's figures but DAS course attendance anywhere means that a driver has been caught speeding, hence statistically speaking is more likely to have crashed in the past than someone who doesn't speed. It's up to you if you choose not to believe it, it's not my role to persuade you. Stand outside the next DAS course and ask people if you want to find out what I already know....!
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: tbpoole said "As I have said before drivers who have attended DAS courses are more likely to have been involved in crashes." Can you expand on that please? More likely than who? Is this a percentage of those who have not been on a course compared to those who have? It sounds a dodgy statement to me but I'm open to being convinced. Does 'involved in' mean caused?[/p][/quote]It's quite easy to find many examples and here is just one. This one mentions traffic violations, which by implication means speeding. And speeders get the chance to go on DAS courses. http://www.thepsycho logist.org.uk/archiv e/archive_home.cfm?v olumeID=25&editi onID =217&ArticleID=2 134 "Driving violations have a long history of association with accidents. For example, Gerbers and Peck (2003) found that those drivers who have a traffic violation have a higher subsequent accident rate. In the 1990s a group of Manchester psychologists attempted to show how violations might differ from other forms of human error. They showed that errors, lapses and violations were separate factors (Reason et al., 1990). Their focus has been on the violation factor, which they have shown to be related to crash involvement (Parker et al., 1995)."[/p][/quote]So where does it say that those who have attended DAS courses in Dorset have been involved in more crashes than those who haven't?[/p][/quote]It doesn't mention Dorset here of course because this particular research was carried out before DAS existed. And no I dont have access to Dorset's figures but DAS course attendance anywhere means that a driver has been caught speeding, hence statistically speaking is more likely to have crashed in the past than someone who doesn't speed. It's up to you if you choose not to believe it, it's not my role to persuade you. Stand outside the next DAS course and ask people if you want to find out what I already know....! tbpoole
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Tue 29 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, I am quite happy with balanced, competent, proportionate targeting of speeding as a part of a competent, open, transparent and proven road safety plan. My obsession if you like is to move on from the obsession with speed.
Trouble is you have convinced yourself that there is NO place for speed enforcment anywhere, except perhaps supporting it at locations where you know there is no chance of speeding anyway, such as outside schools at already congested start/finish times.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, I am quite happy with balanced, competent, proportionate targeting of speeding as a part of a competent, open, transparent and proven road safety plan. My obsession if you like is to move on from the obsession with speed.[/p][/quote]Trouble is you have convinced yourself that there is NO place for speed enforcment anywhere, except perhaps supporting it at locations where you know there is no chance of speeding anyway, such as outside schools at already congested start/finish times. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Tue 29 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, I am quite happy with balanced, competent, proportionate targeting of speeding as a part of a competent, open, transparent and proven road safety plan. My obsession if you like is to move on from the obsession with speed.
Trouble is you have convinced yourself that there is NO place for speed enforcment anywhere, except perhaps supporting it at locations where you know there is no chance of speeding anyway, such as outside schools at already congested start/finish times.
Don't be silly, no I haven't
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, I am quite happy with balanced, competent, proportionate targeting of speeding as a part of a competent, open, transparent and proven road safety plan. My obsession if you like is to move on from the obsession with speed.[/p][/quote]Trouble is you have convinced yourself that there is NO place for speed enforcment anywhere, except perhaps supporting it at locations where you know there is no chance of speeding anyway, such as outside schools at already congested start/finish times.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly, no I haven't dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Tue 29 Jul 14

spooki says...

Ok, in the Castle Lane area this morning I had to avoid some twit driving toward me over the middle white lines because he had something he was looking down at, I can only guess it was a phone. I was driving in a side road later and some other twit slammed his brakes on (without looking behind him) and started reversing towards me. I honked and he finally looked behind him and motioned ME to get out of the way so he could do a u-ey in the middle of the road! Where were the police then?
I have NEVER seen the police on the Wessex Way when I go into Bmth centre. I have NEVER seen them when I drive to or through Kinson, Christchurch, or Poole. So where exactly are they enforcing the laws?
Ok, in the Castle Lane area this morning I had to avoid some twit driving toward me over the middle white lines because he had something he was looking down at, I can only guess it was a phone. I was driving in a side road later and some other twit slammed his brakes on (without looking behind him) and started reversing towards me. I honked and he finally looked behind him and motioned ME to get out of the way so he could do a u-ey in the middle of the road! Where were the police then? I have NEVER seen the police on the Wessex Way when I go into Bmth centre. I have NEVER seen them when I drive to or through Kinson, Christchurch, or Poole. So where exactly are they enforcing the laws? spooki
  • Score: -1

6:20pm Tue 29 Jul 14

spooki says...

Greatstuff wrote:
So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.
It the senile cretins could look at a map beforehand so they know where they're going and not cut in front of me or hover across two lanes, I would be very grateful.
[quote][p][bold]Greatstuff[/bold] wrote: So long as the roads are infested with senile cretins who crawl about at half the speed limit there will be the inevitable consequences of the actions of those that try to get past them. There will also be the continuation of the cull of cyclists that they are unable to register in their advanced state of dementure. Get that brigade off the roads and all will be a lot safer with no further investment required.[/p][/quote]It the senile cretins could look at a map beforehand so they know where they're going and not cut in front of me or hover across two lanes, I would be very grateful. spooki
  • Score: 1

10:19pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors.

No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety.

Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras.

Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe





ed.org.uk
7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed.
This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?'
And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website.
Just post here the 'of what' figure.

7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many.
Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.
What on earth is that all about?
Once again Dorsetspeed avoids answering a direct question with the skills of a mealy-mouthed politician.

I'll now try again with the same straightforward question and request for pertinent information.
'7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure.'
I still don't understand what you're going on about. About 7% of all ksi accidents have exceeding the limit as a factor. What do you not understand about that? Why on earth are you continuing to ask "of what"??
Hello Dorsetspeed,
Try '7% of how many accidents?'
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: On Friday I met with Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle. One of the things that struck me was that there were no signs of any kind of knowledge of road safety between the three of them, for example, they looked at me like I was mad when I told them that only about 7% of KSI accidents had speeding as one of potentially several factors. No wonder Dorset does so badly on road safety. Mr Underhill has extended the cover up of fraudulent activities involving Dorset Police and speed cameras. Full info here: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk[/p][/quote]7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure. 7" of any number of accidents is 7% too many. Then, perhaps Dorsetspeed, being the hypocrite I believe him to be, thinks this figure is too low for Mr Underhill, James Vaughan and Nicky Searle to be concerned about.[/p][/quote]What on earth is that all about?[/p][/quote]Once again Dorsetspeed avoids answering a direct question with the skills of a mealy-mouthed politician. I'll now try again with the same straightforward question and request for pertinent information. '7% of how many accidents, Dorsetspeed. This figure of 7% is meaningless without the 'of what?' And please do not use this omission of key data as a ploy to get us readers of your post to go to your website. Just post here the 'of what' figure.'[/p][/quote]I still don't understand what you're going on about. About 7% of all ksi accidents have exceeding the limit as a factor. What do you not understand about that? Why on earth are you continuing to ask "of what"??[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Try '7% of how many accidents?' Rally
  • Score: 1

8:53am Wed 30 Jul 14

rayc says...

With driver less cars being on the roads from next year can we look forward to car computers attending the DAS in future? Young drivers, new drivers, elderly drivers etc etc will no longer be blamed for collisions as the computer will be responsible. Who will put good money on the chances of KSI collisions in Dorset being greatly reduced in the next 10 years?
With driver less cars being on the roads from next year can we look forward to car computers attending the DAS in future? Young drivers, new drivers, elderly drivers etc etc will no longer be blamed for collisions as the computer will be responsible. Who will put good money on the chances of KSI collisions in Dorset being greatly reduced in the next 10 years? rayc
  • Score: -2

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