Tragic toll: 25 lives lost on county's roads last year

Lily-Mae Jeffries, who was killed on the roads last year

Lily-Mae Jeffries, who was killed on the roads last year

First published in News

THE number of people killed on Dorset roads jumped by almost a third last year to a tragic 25.

Among the victims were five-year-old Lily-Mae Jeffries who was involved in a collision with two motorbikes as she crossed the road with her grandmother, motorcyclists David Bartholomew and Nick Barry and friends Craig Jewell and Joshua Tate who died when the car they were travelling in crashed into a tree and burst into flames.

The number of fatal collisions in Dorset rose by six deaths from 19 in 2011.

Who were the 25 killed on the roads? Read about them here

Dorset’s top traffic officer says while there is no particular reason for the rise in deaths, motorists need to remember that a momentary lapse in concentration could lead to tragedy.

Speaking about the 25 people killed on the roads in 2012, Inspector Matt Butler, pictured left, added: “They are not just statistics – these are real people who have been killed or seriously injured.

“My officers are at the front line, at the scene dealing with these collisions, seeing the carnage and unfortunately delivering those messages that people didn’t ever want to receive.

“We are very much aware that real people are being killed on our roads and are trying to reduce this – it is something we are very passionate about.”

The number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents in Dorset also rose last year – from 329 in 2011 to 333 at mid-December.

Insp Butler added: “I cannot say why there has been a slight increase but this is the picture regionally and nationally.

“While there has been an increase it is lower than it has been historically – in 2002 there were 52 fatal collisions in Dorset.”

He said the force, together with other members of Dorset Road Safe, would continue to target the vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists, moped riders and senior motorbike riders on high-powered machines.

The organisation already runs Bike Safe for motorcyclists and in the New Year it will be launching its Ride Alive project.

This will deliver messages to older students in schools and colleges about riding mopeds and scooters and offering them the chance to take part in an on-street training programme.

It also delivers its hard-hitting Safe Drive, Stay Alive message to schools. Insp Butler said just over a quarter, 29 per cent, of people killed or seriously injured last year were involved in accidents on Dorset’s truck road – the A31 and A35.

He added: “The biggest factor is careless driving – people not paying attention to the road properly, driving too closely and failing to give themselves time to react.”

The force says the main causes of accidents on Dorset’s road are the ‘fatal four’ – severity of injury due to not wearing a seatbelt, excess speed, not paying attention such as speaking on the phone and drink or drug driving.

Insp Butler said: “The first fatal collision I dealt with as an officer was a drink driver and the most recent investigation I carried out also involved drink driving.

“Drink driving kills people – it’s as simple as that.”

He urged motorists to take care this winter.

“People need to give themselves extra time on their journeys to keep themselves safe.

“Remember when you get into your car every single day there is a potential for something to go wrong.

“You have a responsibility to make sure you are able to deal with these situations and pay attention to what’s going on ahead of you.”

Cllr Peter Finney, cabinet member for highways and transportation, said: “We have put a lot of time and effort towards making the roads in Dorset safe.

“The only thing that affects the casualty rate is people’s behaviour on the road.

“That’s the only area we can improve.

“It is all down to driver education. The sad fact is that people are either driving too quickly or not doing what they should be doing.

“Driver error is a factor in the majority of cases.”

Cllr Finney added: “I get reports of all the serious incidents that happen in Dorset county and, without exception, not one of them last year was down to road conditions.”

We welcome your comments on this story but please take the time to read our new house rules before posting.

Comments (92)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:15am Tue 8 Jan 13

jobsworthwatch says...

The 'Fatal fifth' has got to be a totally inadequate and poorly maintained road network in the county.

'No excuses' from inspector Butler then!
The 'Fatal fifth' has got to be a totally inadequate and poorly maintained road network in the county. 'No excuses' from inspector Butler then! jobsworthwatch
  • Score: 0

9:22am Tue 8 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

the number one safety device in any vehicle? The attitude of the driver- if you are calm and alert and considerate then the chances of having an "accident" are very small. However if you are stressed, impatient or aggressive then you are a danger to yourself and everyone else- plus you will feel exhausted by the end of your journey . If you want to do two simple things to increase safety , apart from getting your frame of mind right, then drive at slower and leave a 2 second gap between you and the vehicle in front . Leave the rushing and stress to the others...
the number one safety device in any vehicle? The attitude of the driver- if you are calm and alert and considerate then the chances of having an "accident" are very small. However if you are stressed, impatient or aggressive then you are a danger to yourself and everyone else- plus you will feel exhausted by the end of your journey . If you want to do two simple things to increase safety , apart from getting your frame of mind right, then drive at slower and leave a 2 second gap between you and the vehicle in front . Leave the rushing and stress to the others... uvox44
  • Score: 0

9:23am Tue 8 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

sorry that should have said "slower speed" and a minimum 2 second gap!
sorry that should have said "slower speed" and a minimum 2 second gap! uvox44
  • Score: 0

9:30am Tue 8 Jan 13

nosuchluck54 says...

uvox44 wrote:
the number one safety device in any vehicle? The attitude of the driver- if you are calm and alert and considerate then the chances of having an "accident" are very small. However if you are stressed, impatient or aggressive then you are a danger to yourself and everyone else- plus you will feel exhausted by the end of your journey . If you want to do two simple things to increase safety , apart from getting your frame of mind right, then drive at slower and leave a 2 second gap between you and the vehicle in front . Leave the rushing and stress to the others...
You forgot drunk which was a factor in a couple of names continually mentioned within the Echo pages.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: the number one safety device in any vehicle? The attitude of the driver- if you are calm and alert and considerate then the chances of having an "accident" are very small. However if you are stressed, impatient or aggressive then you are a danger to yourself and everyone else- plus you will feel exhausted by the end of your journey . If you want to do two simple things to increase safety , apart from getting your frame of mind right, then drive at slower and leave a 2 second gap between you and the vehicle in front . Leave the rushing and stress to the others...[/p][/quote]You forgot drunk which was a factor in a couple of names continually mentioned within the Echo pages. nosuchluck54
  • Score: 0

9:36am Tue 8 Jan 13

pitbull74 says...

Where is the comment from the "SEES" team? The ones that run The No Excuse campaign and the safety cameras. Which incidently aren't staffed by Police officers but like to have Police written all over the van so people think they are.

It should be noted that not all of these RTC's were due to the drivers behaviour, however the majority are, and the Police can't easily detect people not concentrating at the wheel until its too late. Time to take some responsibility for yourselves and concentrate whilst driving. Rather than planning your day and drinking your coffee. Think! We've all had that near miss experience.
Next time you might not be so lucky or worse still someone else might end up a statistic from your error.
Where is the comment from the "SEES" team? The ones that run The No Excuse campaign and the safety cameras. Which incidently aren't staffed by Police officers but like to have Police written all over the van so people think they are. It should be noted that not all of these RTC's were due to the drivers behaviour, however the majority are, and the Police can't easily detect people not concentrating at the wheel until its too late. Time to take some responsibility for yourselves and concentrate whilst driving. Rather than planning your day and drinking your coffee. Think! We've all had that near miss experience. Next time you might not be so lucky or worse still someone else might end up a statistic from your error. pitbull74
  • Score: 0

9:38am Tue 8 Jan 13

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

Possibly there are more incidents because the amount of people in the country and therefore on the roads are increasing??
Possibly there are more incidents because the amount of people in the country and therefore on the roads are increasing?? Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 0

9:38am Tue 8 Jan 13

Old before my time says...

Population of Dorset: 390980
Number of people killed: 25
% of population killed on roads: 0.0064

Press sensationism yet again.

Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments.
Population of Dorset: 390980 Number of people killed: 25 % of population killed on roads: 0.0064 Press sensationism yet again. Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments. Old before my time
  • Score: 0

9:39am Tue 8 Jan 13

Old before my time says...

*Sensationalism
*Sensationalism Old before my time
  • Score: 0

9:46am Tue 8 Jan 13

pitbull74 says...

Add to it the number of seriously injured persons and I'd say it is news. Even if its just to remind people that it happens and they are not invincible, as many have the attitude "It wont happen to me".
Add to it the number of seriously injured persons and I'd say it is news. Even if its just to remind people that it happens and they are not invincible, as many have the attitude "It wont happen to me". pitbull74
  • Score: 0

9:55am Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

So will Dorset Police concentrate on the causes of these fatalities or just give us more of the failed No Excuse campaign.
We have had over 10 years of camera enforcement, with many thousands of drivers prosecuted for being a few mph over the limit on the safest roads. You only have to study the accident statistics for individual fixed and mobile camera sites on the Dorset Roadsafe web site to realise that they are sited at locations with hardly any accident history.
Dorset Roadsafe and their controllers in the Police are quick to claim the glory when there is some perceived improvement in safety statistics, I expect they will now revert to blaming drivers and trotting out the old 'excessive speed' reason.
So will Dorset Police concentrate on the causes of these fatalities or just give us more of the failed No Excuse campaign. We have had over 10 years of camera enforcement, with many thousands of drivers prosecuted for being a few mph over the limit on the safest roads. You only have to study the accident statistics for individual fixed and mobile camera sites on the Dorset Roadsafe web site to realise that they are sited at locations with hardly any accident history. Dorset Roadsafe and their controllers in the Police are quick to claim the glory when there is some perceived improvement in safety statistics, I expect they will now revert to blaming drivers and trotting out the old 'excessive speed' reason. rayc
  • Score: 0

9:55am Tue 8 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

Population of Dorset: 390980
Number of people killed: 25
% of population killed on roads: 0.0064

Press sensationism yet again.

Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments.

Strange reasoning - imagine if it was 25 muders instead of "accidents" , would you still say that it was not worth reporting? Or are people killed on the road somehow less important than those murdered?
Population of Dorset: 390980 Number of people killed: 25 % of population killed on roads: 0.0064 Press sensationism yet again. Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments. Strange reasoning - imagine if it was 25 muders instead of "accidents" , would you still say that it was not worth reporting? Or are people killed on the road somehow less important than those murdered? uvox44
  • Score: 0

9:59am Tue 8 Jan 13

nosuchluck54 says...

uvox44 wrote:
Population of Dorset: 390980
Number of people killed: 25
% of population killed on roads: 0.0064

Press sensationism yet again.

Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments.

Strange reasoning - imagine if it was 25 muders instead of "accidents" , would you still say that it was not worth reporting? Or are people killed on the road somehow less important than those murdered?
So what is killing by driving while drunk is that not murder or at least manslaughter?
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: Population of Dorset: 390980 Number of people killed: 25 % of population killed on roads: 0.0064 Press sensationism yet again. Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments. Strange reasoning - imagine if it was 25 muders instead of "accidents" , would you still say that it was not worth reporting? Or are people killed on the road somehow less important than those murdered?[/p][/quote]So what is killing by driving while drunk is that not murder or at least manslaughter? nosuchluck54
  • Score: 0

10:13am Tue 8 Jan 13

Old before my time says...

uvox44 wrote:
Population of Dorset: 390980
Number of people killed: 25
% of population killed on roads: 0.0064

Press sensationism yet again.

Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments.

Strange reasoning - imagine if it was 25 muders instead of "accidents" , would you still say that it was not worth reporting? Or are people killed on the road somehow less important than those murdered?
I don't know the murder figures but I expect they are still insignificant. 1 in 100,000 isn't bad odds in my books.
I just did a quick search and it was around 550 last year. Again, pretty good odds of not being murdered, especially if you consider a large amount were probably as a result of criminal activity e.g. gangs
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: Population of Dorset: 390980 Number of people killed: 25 % of population killed on roads: 0.0064 Press sensationism yet again. Tragic for the people involved, but not news and only serves to stir up arguments. Strange reasoning - imagine if it was 25 muders instead of "accidents" , would you still say that it was not worth reporting? Or are people killed on the road somehow less important than those murdered?[/p][/quote]I don't know the murder figures but I expect they are still insignificant. 1 in 100,000 isn't bad odds in my books. I just did a quick search and it was around 550 last year. Again, pretty good odds of not being murdered, especially if you consider a large amount were probably as a result of criminal activity e.g. gangs Old before my time
  • Score: 0

10:14am Tue 8 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

@nosuchluck54- quite agree with you, i was replying to Old before my times' post but didn't cut and paste it properly so it might look like the first bit was something I said- it wasn't!
@nosuchluck54- quite agree with you, i was replying to Old before my times' post but didn't cut and paste it properly so it might look like the first bit was something I said- it wasn't! uvox44
  • Score: 0

10:16am Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

Cllr Peter Finney said “The only thing that affects the casualty rate is people’s behaviour on the road. “That’s the only area we can improve. “It is all down to driver education. The sad fact is that people are either driving too quickly or not doing what they should be doing."

What were the people killed in the collapse of the tunnel in Beaminster not doing what they should be doing?

It is because of the attitude of Cllr Finney that the Police continue to target the easily detected offences to enforce attendance at money making Driver Awareness Courses. Perhaps a bit more Engineering and less Enforcement or Education was required at the tunnel?
Cllr Peter Finney said “The only thing that affects the casualty rate is people’s behaviour on the road. “That’s the only area we can improve. “It is all down to driver education. The sad fact is that people are either driving too quickly or not doing what they should be doing." What were the people killed in the collapse of the tunnel in Beaminster not doing what they should be doing? It is because of the attitude of Cllr Finney that the Police continue to target the easily detected offences to enforce attendance at money making Driver Awareness Courses. Perhaps a bit more Engineering and less Enforcement or Education was required at the tunnel? rayc
  • Score: 0

10:40am Tue 8 Jan 13

Teddy 1 says...

This is bad! What has changed in the last 18 months?? Are the police actually taking time to look at the profile of drivers having the collisions (where theybare also being injured or killed) and checking this against those being caught on camera. This is basic stuff, I would like to think they are! Also what happened to dying to drive? My teenage son watched this and it really made him and his mates think about not taking risks and if they did what would happen. It's a shame that this appears to have been scrapped as no mention. What is safe drive stay alive? Sounds like an expensive waste of money...
This is bad! What has changed in the last 18 months?? Are the police actually taking time to look at the profile of drivers having the collisions (where theybare also being injured or killed) and checking this against those being caught on camera. This is basic stuff, I would like to think they are! Also what happened to dying to drive? My teenage son watched this and it really made him and his mates think about not taking risks and if they did what would happen. It's a shame that this appears to have been scrapped as no mention. What is safe drive stay alive? Sounds like an expensive waste of money... Teddy 1
  • Score: 0

10:58am Tue 8 Jan 13

Hessenford says...

Every death on the roads is an unwelcome death but we all have a duty to be more aware of our surroundings, drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and especially children.
Everybody must know that drink and driving doesn't mix, in my view this is premeditated manslaughter.
Drivers straying a few mph over the limit is not a danger, however drivers who stray 20 or 30 mph over the limit are.
Drivers on mobile phones should be shot on sight, cyclists weaving in and out of traffic are a common distraction which can cause serious injury to other innocent parties.
I cant really see how excessive speed is a factor in all accidents as the roads are gridlocked when ever I use them.
Everybody has to be more aware of whats going on, then perhaps accidents will reduce.
Every death on the roads is an unwelcome death but we all have a duty to be more aware of our surroundings, drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and especially children. Everybody must know that drink and driving doesn't mix, in my view this is premeditated manslaughter. Drivers straying a few mph over the limit is not a danger, however drivers who stray 20 or 30 mph over the limit are. Drivers on mobile phones should be shot on sight, cyclists weaving in and out of traffic are a common distraction which can cause serious injury to other innocent parties. I cant really see how excessive speed is a factor in all accidents as the roads are gridlocked when ever I use them. Everybody has to be more aware of whats going on, then perhaps accidents will reduce. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

10:58am Tue 8 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

rayc-get off your hobby horse, you're obessed with poor motorist syndrome, the plain fact, as you well know, is that the VAST majority of "accidents" ARE caused by driver mistakes , geniune unavoidable accidents such as the tunnel collapse , are extremely rare.
rayc-get off your hobby horse, you're obessed with poor motorist syndrome, the plain fact, as you well know, is that the VAST majority of "accidents" ARE caused by driver mistakes , geniune unavoidable accidents such as the tunnel collapse , are extremely rare. uvox44
  • Score: 0

11:48am Tue 8 Jan 13

retry69 says...

uvox44 wrote:
rayc-get off your hobby horse, you're obessed with poor motorist syndrome, the plain fact, as you well know, is that the VAST majority of "accidents" ARE caused by driver mistakes , geniune unavoidable accidents such as the tunnel collapse , are extremely rare.
Spot on,its a fact that a lot of drivers will not except, that is their own attitude while on the roads,increasingly alarming are the drivers who only respond to criticism with "i have been driving for 25 years no points,no fines etc etc" in some cases thats 25 years too long
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: rayc-get off your hobby horse, you're obessed with poor motorist syndrome, the plain fact, as you well know, is that the VAST majority of "accidents" ARE caused by driver mistakes , geniune unavoidable accidents such as the tunnel collapse , are extremely rare.[/p][/quote]Spot on,its a fact that a lot of drivers will not except, that is their own attitude while on the roads,increasingly alarming are the drivers who only respond to criticism with "i have been driving for 25 years no points,no fines etc etc" in some cases thats 25 years too long retry69
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

retry69 wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
rayc-get off your hobby horse, you're obessed with poor motorist syndrome, the plain fact, as you well know, is that the VAST majority of "accidents" ARE caused by driver mistakes , geniune unavoidable accidents such as the tunnel collapse , are extremely rare.
Spot on,its a fact that a lot of drivers will not except, that is their own attitude while on the roads,increasingly alarming are the drivers who only respond to criticism with "i have been driving for 25 years no points,no fines etc etc" in some cases thats 25 years too long
Ok, this article is about the 25 killed last year on Dorset roads.
What can be done to prevent accidents such as that of Soldier Matthew Cottrell or Ross Lipsett? On the face of it they were random accidents on main trunk roads at night and as far as we know did not involve anyone breaking any laws?
The authorities have acknowledged that more of the same enforcement will not reduce accidents any further and indeed in Dorset they have started to climb. What do you suggest to help them reduce fatal accidents even further taking into account the circumstances of the 25 deaths last year?
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: rayc-get off your hobby horse, you're obessed with poor motorist syndrome, the plain fact, as you well know, is that the VAST majority of "accidents" ARE caused by driver mistakes , geniune unavoidable accidents such as the tunnel collapse , are extremely rare.[/p][/quote]Spot on,its a fact that a lot of drivers will not except, that is their own attitude while on the roads,increasingly alarming are the drivers who only respond to criticism with "i have been driving for 25 years no points,no fines etc etc" in some cases thats 25 years too long[/p][/quote]Ok, this article is about the 25 killed last year on Dorset roads. What can be done to prevent accidents such as that of Soldier Matthew Cottrell or Ross Lipsett? On the face of it they were random accidents on main trunk roads at night and as far as we know did not involve anyone breaking any laws? The authorities have acknowledged that more of the same enforcement will not reduce accidents any further and indeed in Dorset they have started to climb. What do you suggest to help them reduce fatal accidents even further taking into account the circumstances of the 25 deaths last year? rayc
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

retry69 says...

rayc so those 25 killed in your opinion are classed as accidents is that right?
rayc so those 25 killed in your opinion are classed as accidents is that right? retry69
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

retry69 wrote:
rayc so those 25 killed in your opinion are classed as accidents is that right?
The article classes them as "fatal collisions" i.e "The number of fatal collisions in Dorset rose by six deaths from 19 in 2011". I'll call them that and not fatal accidents if you like.

Fatal collisions apparently covers a very wide meaning as it includes tons of earth falling on a car from a tunnel collapse.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: rayc so those 25 killed in your opinion are classed as accidents is that right?[/p][/quote]The article classes them as "fatal collisions" i.e "The number of fatal collisions in Dorset rose by six deaths from 19 in 2011". I'll call them that and not fatal accidents if you like. Fatal collisions apparently covers a very wide meaning as it includes tons of earth falling on a car from a tunnel collapse. rayc
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Tue 8 Jan 13

djd says...

All the police are saying is that they can reduce the number of drivers who drive withoutaying attention, drink driving, using mobile phone etc., then the casualty rate will be much lower.
As long as there are cars on the road and humans there will be incidents where vehicles collide with vehicles or any other thing/person using the road.
Drivers need to pay attention to their driving rather than trying to do anything else whilst they are driving. If only one person is killed on the roads, that's one person too many.
Safe driving !!!
All the police are saying is that they can reduce the number of drivers who drive withoutaying attention, drink driving, using mobile phone etc., then the casualty rate will be much lower. As long as there are cars on the road and humans there will be incidents where vehicles collide with vehicles or any other thing/person using the road. Drivers need to pay attention to their driving rather than trying to do anything else whilst they are driving. If only one person is killed on the roads, that's one person too many. Safe driving !!! djd
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

As someone else has mentioned, Dorset Road Unsafe like to claim all the credit when figures reduce (as they did to win the Prince Michael Award) but when they go up, it’s due to the weather, or they “don’t know”.
The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors. It is therefore incredibly difficult to influence accident counts. For example, once a car has unexpectedly left the road, whether or not it results in a death is just as likely to depend on where an acorn landed before cars were even invented as anything else.
Anyone who thinks therefore that a yellow box on a pole or an occasional stripy van at a predictable location can help is sadly deluded and the results confirm it – during the 10 year obsession with speed and speed cameras, the proportion of speeding related deaths and serious injuries has not reduced at all, simple as that.
I’m pleased to see that Matt Butler shows some signs of knowing what causes the most accidents – simple careless driving / driver error. Unfortunately, this contradicts what the “force” says (seatbelt, speed, phone, drugs / drink). But the force says this because that’s what it does and how it makes all its money which is sadly all its interested in. We’re coming up to 2 years now since Dorset Police have been trying to hide where all the money goes.
So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash.
As someone else has mentioned, Dorset Road Unsafe like to claim all the credit when figures reduce (as they did to win the Prince Michael Award) but when they go up, it’s due to the weather, or they “don’t know”. The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors. It is therefore incredibly difficult to influence accident counts. For example, once a car has unexpectedly left the road, whether or not it results in a death is just as likely to depend on where an acorn landed before cars were even invented as anything else. Anyone who thinks therefore that a yellow box on a pole or an occasional stripy van at a predictable location can help is sadly deluded and the results confirm it – during the 10 year obsession with speed and speed cameras, the proportion of speeding related deaths and serious injuries has not reduced at all, simple as that. I’m pleased to see that Matt Butler shows some signs of knowing what causes the most accidents – simple careless driving / driver error. Unfortunately, this contradicts what the “force” says (seatbelt, speed, phone, drugs / drink). But the force says this because that’s what it does and how it makes all its money which is sadly all its interested in. We’re coming up to 2 years now since Dorset Police have been trying to hide where all the money goes. So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Pablo23 says...

uvox44 wrote:
the number one safety device in any vehicle? The attitude of the driver- if you are calm and alert and considerate then the chances of having an "accident" are very small. However if you are stressed, impatient or aggressive then you are a danger to yourself and everyone else- plus you will feel exhausted by the end of your journey . If you want to do two simple things to increase safety , apart from getting your frame of mind right, then drive at slower and leave a 2 second gap between you and the vehicle in front . Leave the rushing and stress to the others...
I definately agree with your point about peoples attitudes.
My experience is they are a lot more arrogant and inconciderate in recent years. Its like driving is some sort of competition and any politeness is seen as a weakness.

p.s. "Speaking about the 25 people killed on the roads in 2012, Inspector Matt Butler, pictured left,".
Where?
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: the number one safety device in any vehicle? The attitude of the driver- if you are calm and alert and considerate then the chances of having an "accident" are very small. However if you are stressed, impatient or aggressive then you are a danger to yourself and everyone else- plus you will feel exhausted by the end of your journey . If you want to do two simple things to increase safety , apart from getting your frame of mind right, then drive at slower and leave a 2 second gap between you and the vehicle in front . Leave the rushing and stress to the others...[/p][/quote]I definately agree with your point about peoples attitudes. My experience is they are a lot more arrogant and inconciderate in recent years. Its like driving is some sort of competition and any politeness is seen as a weakness. p.s. "Speaking about the 25 people killed on the roads in 2012, Inspector Matt Butler, pictured left,". Where? Pablo23
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Adrian XX says...

The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors.


So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash.


Given the information in the first quote, it would seem the aim of reducing accidents is likely to fail.

And there is nothing at all wrong with "cash-driven" since just about every public service needs extra cash. Dismantling procedures that bring in money is clearly foolish. We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones.
[quote]The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors. [/quote] [quote]So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash.[/quote] Given the information in the first quote, it would seem the aim of reducing accidents is likely to fail. And there is nothing at all wrong with "cash-driven" since just about every public service needs extra cash. Dismantling procedures that bring in money is clearly foolish. We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones. Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

Adrian XX wrote:
The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors.


So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash.


Given the information in the first quote, it would seem the aim of reducing accidents is likely to fail.

And there is nothing at all wrong with "cash-driven" since just about every public service needs extra cash. Dismantling procedures that bring in money is clearly foolish. We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones.
quote "We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones."
It was said by the Police when speed cameras were introduced that it would free up Police Traffic Officers to concentrate on serious moving traffic offences.
What in fact happened was Traffic Departments were shut and the Officers moved to general duties.

Still at least there is an acknowledgement that the Driver Awareness Scheme is primarily about making money.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote]The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors. [/quote] [quote]So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash.[/quote] Given the information in the first quote, it would seem the aim of reducing accidents is likely to fail. And there is nothing at all wrong with "cash-driven" since just about every public service needs extra cash. Dismantling procedures that bring in money is clearly foolish. We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones.[/p][/quote]quote "We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones." It was said by the Police when speed cameras were introduced that it would free up Police Traffic Officers to concentrate on serious moving traffic offences. What in fact happened was Traffic Departments were shut and the Officers moved to general duties. Still at least there is an acknowledgement that the Driver Awareness Scheme is primarily about making money. rayc
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Teddy 1 says...

The financial information should be disclosed under FOI if you ask for it surely?
The financial information should be disclosed under FOI if you ask for it surely? Teddy 1
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

Adrian XX wrote:
The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors.


So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash.


Given the information in the first quote, it would seem the aim of reducing accidents is likely to fail.

And there is nothing at all wrong with "cash-driven" since just about every public service needs extra cash. Dismantling procedures that bring in money is clearly foolish. We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones.
The first quote does indeed suggest it is difficult to influence “accidents”. But you can work on the most significant factors which should reduce the chances of accidents. At the least, a proper analysis could provide an understanding of what reductions are possible against what costs. Dorset Police won’t even tell us where the money goes so they fail even before they get to the first hurdle.
There is nothing wrong with enforcement money being a part of safety delivery. But it isn’t. It’s just a part of making money and preserving jobs. Anyway, I pay my taxes as do most others, I pay for policing already, so they need to spend what they have wisely rather than just making as much as they can for the pointless preservation of large numbers of non-jobs.
But the real killer as that while we have everyone in Dorset Police doing everything they can to make loads of money, this is taking the focus off approaches that could really deliver some reductions, like tackling driver error, a factor in an astonishing 65%of ksis.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote]The fact is that most accidents, and probably even more so deaths, are incredibly random events usually resulting from the unlikely and infrequent coincidence of several unrelated factors. [/quote] [quote]So if we really want to do some proper road safety work that stands some chance of helping, step one is going to be to dismantle the self-interested cash driven regime we have now and build a modern competent team motivated by reducing accidents, not cash.[/quote] Given the information in the first quote, it would seem the aim of reducing accidents is likely to fail. And there is nothing at all wrong with "cash-driven" since just about every public service needs extra cash. Dismantling procedures that bring in money is clearly foolish. We should be targeting easily detected offences so that the police then have the financial resources to deal with the less easily detected ones.[/p][/quote]The first quote does indeed suggest it is difficult to influence “accidents”. But you can work on the most significant factors which should reduce the chances of accidents. At the least, a proper analysis could provide an understanding of what reductions are possible against what costs. Dorset Police won’t even tell us where the money goes so they fail even before they get to the first hurdle. There is nothing wrong with enforcement money being a part of safety delivery. But it isn’t. It’s just a part of making money and preserving jobs. Anyway, I pay my taxes as do most others, I pay for policing already, so they need to spend what they have wisely rather than just making as much as they can for the pointless preservation of large numbers of non-jobs. But the real killer as that while we have everyone in Dorset Police doing everything they can to make loads of money, this is taking the focus off approaches that could really deliver some reductions, like tackling driver error, a factor in an astonishing 65%of ksis. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

Teddy 1 wrote:
The financial information should be disclosed under FOI if you ask for it surely?
Nope. This was a year ago:

http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/news/sog98
.aspx

Since then, they lied to the information commissioner when I raised the complaint to them, and I am now waiting to hear from my appeal which I expect will be very interesting.
[quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: The financial information should be disclosed under FOI if you ask for it surely?[/p][/quote]Nope. This was a year ago: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/news/sog98 .aspx Since then, they lied to the information commissioner when I raised the complaint to them, and I am now waiting to hear from my appeal which I expect will be very interesting. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Dont drop litter says...

Whilst all road deaths are tragic, especially those of innocent people caught up in the wreckless behaviour of others, I am more concerned by the number of murders that have happened in the town this year.
Whilst all road deaths are tragic, especially those of innocent people caught up in the wreckless behaviour of others, I am more concerned by the number of murders that have happened in the town this year. Dont drop litter
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Tue 8 Jan 13

EGHH says...

How many are drink or drug related? How many involved elderly drivers? How many young drivers?
How many are drink or drug related? How many involved elderly drivers? How many young drivers? EGHH
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Ophilum says...

You have to realise that the roads are a danger in themselves, no better than cart tracks with hedges growing out to obscure visibility and the road surfaces like a test track for the suspension, an accident waiting to happen.
All or most of the road fund tax spent on the EU.
You have to realise that the roads are a danger in themselves, no better than cart tracks with hedges growing out to obscure visibility and the road surfaces like a test track for the suspension, an accident waiting to happen. All or most of the road fund tax spent on the EU. Ophilum
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Tue 8 Jan 13

hrothgar says...

May not be because of road conditions BUT a lot to do with road design. Example: Canford Bottom roundabout! The Highways Department have a lot to be blamed for. They pay attention where none's needed and no attention when it's required. They put crossings where it's inconvenient to pedestrians so they don't get used and chicanes where obstacles are put in the centre of the road. Crazy!
And one stretch of road (A31) alongside of the Drax estate wall the national speed limit even though a number of very serious accidents occur regularly. Speed reduction along that stretch is desperately needed.
Other examples are Ringwood interchange, Wessex Way Blackwater junction et al all need looking at but nothing ever happens.
Don't always blame the motorist. We're not all mad. Highway design is getting more and more confusing and a lot unnecessary.
May not be because of road conditions BUT a lot to do with road design. Example: Canford Bottom roundabout! The Highways Department have a lot to be blamed for. They pay attention where none's needed and no attention when it's required. They put crossings where it's inconvenient to pedestrians so they don't get used and chicanes where obstacles are put in the centre of the road. Crazy! And one stretch of road (A31) alongside of the Drax estate wall the national speed limit even though a number of very serious accidents occur regularly. Speed reduction along that stretch is desperately needed. Other examples are Ringwood interchange, Wessex Way Blackwater junction et al all need looking at but nothing ever happens. Don't always blame the motorist. We're not all mad. Highway design is getting more and more confusing and a lot unnecessary. hrothgar
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

EGHH wrote:
How many are drink or drug related? How many involved elderly drivers? How many young drivers?
The 'read all about them' link in the above article gives bare details of the collision but not enough details to form a pattern.
Several motor and pedal cyclists, vehicle passengers and pedestrians.
Carmel Buckley, 76, of Southbourne, suffered fatal injuries as she tried to get off a bus in Bournemouth. It shows the impossible task that the Police and the motoring public have to reduce fatal collisions when incidents such as this one and the tunnel collapse are included in the Fatal Collision statistics for the county.
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] wrote: How many are drink or drug related? How many involved elderly drivers? How many young drivers?[/p][/quote]The 'read all about them' link in the above article gives bare details of the collision but not enough details to form a pattern. Several motor and pedal cyclists, vehicle passengers and pedestrians. Carmel Buckley, 76, of Southbourne, suffered fatal injuries as she tried to get off a bus in Bournemouth. It shows the impossible task that the Police and the motoring public have to reduce fatal collisions when incidents such as this one and the tunnel collapse are included in the Fatal Collision statistics for the county. rayc
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

hrothgar wrote:
May not be because of road conditions BUT a lot to do with road design. Example: Canford Bottom roundabout! The Highways Department have a lot to be blamed for. They pay attention where none's needed and no attention when it's required. They put crossings where it's inconvenient to pedestrians so they don't get used and chicanes where obstacles are put in the centre of the road. Crazy!
And one stretch of road (A31) alongside of the Drax estate wall the national speed limit even though a number of very serious accidents occur regularly. Speed reduction along that stretch is desperately needed.
Other examples are Ringwood interchange, Wessex Way Blackwater junction et al all need looking at but nothing ever happens.
Don't always blame the motorist. We're not all mad. Highway design is getting more and more confusing and a lot unnecessary.
Not to mention of course the Fleetsbridge traffic lights. Caught out by calls to simply remove the lights, Poole Council fabricated a saving based on complete fantasy, on absurd assumptions about accident reductions, and wildly incorrect Dft accident cost valuations, to continue without having to admit it was wrong (and then refused to communicate about it).

While we have these levels of stupidity, waste and incompetence things aren't going to get any better.
[quote][p][bold]hrothgar[/bold] wrote: May not be because of road conditions BUT a lot to do with road design. Example: Canford Bottom roundabout! The Highways Department have a lot to be blamed for. They pay attention where none's needed and no attention when it's required. They put crossings where it's inconvenient to pedestrians so they don't get used and chicanes where obstacles are put in the centre of the road. Crazy! And one stretch of road (A31) alongside of the Drax estate wall the national speed limit even though a number of very serious accidents occur regularly. Speed reduction along that stretch is desperately needed. Other examples are Ringwood interchange, Wessex Way Blackwater junction et al all need looking at but nothing ever happens. Don't always blame the motorist. We're not all mad. Highway design is getting more and more confusing and a lot unnecessary.[/p][/quote]Not to mention of course the Fleetsbridge traffic lights. Caught out by calls to simply remove the lights, Poole Council fabricated a saving based on complete fantasy, on absurd assumptions about accident reductions, and wildly incorrect Dft accident cost valuations, to continue without having to admit it was wrong (and then refused to communicate about it). While we have these levels of stupidity, waste and incompetence things aren't going to get any better. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Tue 8 Jan 13

s-pb2 says...

Whatever the reason, or whoever or whatever was to blame, and whether they were preventative or not and if there was success or failure to road safety initiatives. 25 families lost their loved ones.

RIP to the 25
Whatever the reason, or whoever or whatever was to blame, and whether they were preventative or not and if there was success or failure to road safety initiatives. 25 families lost their loved ones. RIP to the 25 s-pb2
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The Renegade Master says...

There are millions of people in this country driving millions of cars on millions of journeys every year. It is a statistical inevitability that some will on occasion crash into each other and that in a small percentage of those that tragic consequences will regrettably ensue.
Although every death on the road is tragic I feel that the Police and Dorset Road Safe are STILL not doing enough to educate drivers or catch the dangerous and illegal drivers. Those who use ridiculously excessive speed in urban areas, tailgate, have no tax or insurance or repeatedly drink/drug drive. For starters, why is the drink drive campaign only prominent in December? This should be all year round shouldn't it? Why don't the police park up outside public houses at closing time and stop everyone driving out? Surely this would be a deterrent to even the most hardened offenders? These obvious tactics aren't being employed, so what do we have instead? That's right, law enforcement that's focussed on targeting the motorist for profit which I consider to be a national disgrace. Their favourite is staking out generally safe busy roads that have a deliberately reduced speed limit and penalise anyone 5mph over a limit that's at least 20mph lower than the road was built for. Wessex Way for example. Why do we never see them on roads that are quiet but potentially dangerous? The reason for that is obvious.
We are also once again being misled with their old clap trap that not wearing a seat belt causes, repeat *causes*, accidents. Were any of the accidents this year CAUSED by someone not wearing a seat belt? I don't think so. Yes not wearing a seat belt increases your chances of serious injury, so by all means fine drivers/passengers on that basis, not by making false statements.
So come on Dorset Police and DRS, STOP targeting safe drivers for revenue generation and START catching the real criminals on the roads.
There are millions of people in this country driving millions of cars on millions of journeys every year. It is a statistical inevitability that some will on occasion crash into each other and that in a small percentage of those that tragic consequences will regrettably ensue. Although every death on the road is tragic I feel that the Police and Dorset Road Safe are STILL not doing enough to educate drivers or catch the dangerous and illegal drivers. Those who use ridiculously excessive speed in urban areas, tailgate, have no tax or insurance or repeatedly drink/drug drive. For starters, why is the drink drive campaign only prominent in December? This should be all year round shouldn't it? Why don't the police park up outside public houses at closing time and stop everyone driving out? Surely this would be a deterrent to even the most hardened offenders? These obvious tactics aren't being employed, so what do we have instead? That's right, law enforcement that's focussed on targeting the motorist for profit which I consider to be a national disgrace. Their favourite is staking out generally safe busy roads that have a deliberately reduced speed limit and penalise anyone 5mph over a limit that's at least 20mph lower than the road was built for. Wessex Way for example. Why do we never see them on roads that are quiet but potentially dangerous? The reason for that is obvious. We are also once again being misled with their old clap trap that not wearing a seat belt causes, repeat *causes*, accidents. Were any of the accidents this year CAUSED by someone not wearing a seat belt? I don't think so. Yes not wearing a seat belt increases your chances of serious injury, so by all means fine drivers/passengers on that basis, not by making false statements. So come on Dorset Police and DRS, STOP targeting safe drivers for revenue generation and START catching the real criminals on the roads. The Renegade Master
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Seabeam says...

The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Tue 8 Jan 13

PokesdownMark says...

rayc wrote:
So will Dorset Police concentrate on the causes of these fatalities or just give us more of the failed No Excuse campaign.
We have had over 10 years of camera enforcement, with many thousands of drivers prosecuted for being a few mph over the limit on the safest roads. You only have to study the accident statistics for individual fixed and mobile camera sites on the Dorset Roadsafe web site to realise that they are sited at locations with hardly any accident history.
Dorset Roadsafe and their controllers in the Police are quick to claim the glory when there is some perceived improvement in safety statistics, I expect they will now revert to blaming drivers and trotting out the old 'excessive speed' reason.
I was surprised to see from Dorset Roadsafe's own figures, more than one third of ALL of Dorsets mobile speed camera prosecutions (2570 out of 7071) are generated at just one location: Wessex Way adjacent to the hospital. A stretch of road where drivers on average exceed the artificially low limit by 15mph. By far the largest surveyed difference of all the mobile sites.
For 2011 the number of prosecutions dropped slightly to 2348. But this is still a very significant number from that one location. This is clearly disproportionate because the only KSI in all of 2011 was a tragic fatality (aren't they all though?) where the camera van itself was involved. (again using their data)
Seems to me like pretty persuasive evidence that they a milking the system?
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: So will Dorset Police concentrate on the causes of these fatalities or just give us more of the failed No Excuse campaign. We have had over 10 years of camera enforcement, with many thousands of drivers prosecuted for being a few mph over the limit on the safest roads. You only have to study the accident statistics for individual fixed and mobile camera sites on the Dorset Roadsafe web site to realise that they are sited at locations with hardly any accident history. Dorset Roadsafe and their controllers in the Police are quick to claim the glory when there is some perceived improvement in safety statistics, I expect they will now revert to blaming drivers and trotting out the old 'excessive speed' reason.[/p][/quote]I was surprised to see from Dorset Roadsafe's own figures, more than one third of ALL of Dorsets mobile speed camera prosecutions (2570 out of 7071) are generated at just one location: Wessex Way adjacent to the hospital. A stretch of road where drivers on average exceed the artificially low limit by 15mph. By far the largest surveyed difference of all the mobile sites. [2010 data] For 2011 the number of prosecutions dropped slightly to 2348. But this is still a very significant number from that one location. This is clearly disproportionate because the only KSI in all of 2011 was a tragic fatality (aren't they all though?) where the camera van itself was involved. (again using their data) Seems to me like pretty persuasive evidence that they a milking the system? PokesdownMark
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Tue 8 Jan 13

PokesdownMark says...

Seabeam wrote:
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
Hate to burst your bubble Seabeam but fixed cameras are planted firmly in the ground. And most corners don't have one. And everyone knows where they are. They do nothing but slow people down for that immediate stretch of road.

Also the evidence that black boxes make any difference is far from proven. They do nothing to detect the observations made by drivers and how effectively those observations are used.
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]Hate to burst your bubble Seabeam but fixed cameras are planted firmly in the ground. And most corners don't have one. And everyone knows where they are. They do nothing but slow people down for that immediate stretch of road. Also the evidence that black boxes make any difference is far from proven. They do nothing to detect the observations made by drivers and how effectively those observations are used. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

Seabeam wrote:
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
Seabeam, we haven't had a reduction of speed cameras in Dorset, in fact, with mobile cameras, we have more.

Increasing deaths have occurred while speed camera numbers have INCREASED, not DECREASED.
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]Seabeam, we haven't had a reduction of speed cameras in Dorset, in fact, with mobile cameras, we have more. Increasing deaths have occurred while speed camera numbers have INCREASED, not DECREASED. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

Seabeam wrote:
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding?
If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail. rayc
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Tue 8 Jan 13

nosuchluck54 says...

The usual posters leaving comments to try and seek some justification to allow them to break the law.Unfortunately the laws of this country apply to us all and if you break those laws you are dealt with,not harshly enough in some cases but im afraid like it or not thats life
The usual posters leaving comments to try and seek some justification to allow them to break the law.Unfortunately the laws of this country apply to us all and if you break those laws you are dealt with,not harshly enough in some cases but im afraid like it or not thats life nosuchluck54
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
The usual posters leaving comments to try and seek some justification to allow them to break the law.Unfortunately the laws of this country apply to us all and if you break those laws you are dealt with,not harshly enough in some cases but im afraid like it or not thats life
I I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want.
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: The usual posters leaving comments to try and seek some justification to allow them to break the law.Unfortunately the laws of this country apply to us all and if you break those laws you are dealt with,not harshly enough in some cases but im afraid like it or not thats life[/p][/quote]I I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

should have been "IF I want to break the law" ...
should have been "IF I want to break the law" ... dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

nosuchluck54 says...

So do i assume that your comment that includes "basically drive however i want" means you dont give a stuff about other road users,
So do i assume that your comment that includes "basically drive however i want" means you dont give a stuff about other road users, nosuchluck54
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

No, it was a hypothetical if, let me type it out fully, correctly:

IF I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want.
No, it was a hypothetical if, let me type it out fully, correctly: IF I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Tue 8 Jan 13

nosuchluck54 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
No, it was a hypothetical if, let me type it out fully, correctly:

IF I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want.
Nah dont wash with me im afraid
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No, it was a hypothetical if, let me type it out fully, correctly: IF I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want.[/p][/quote]Nah dont wash with me im afraid nosuchluck54
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value?
dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value? uvox44
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value?
I'm not really sure, they are probably more dangerous as they cause more distraction, but as speed cameras have comprehensively failed we would be much better moving on altogether.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value?[/p][/quote]I'm not really sure, they are probably more dangerous as they cause more distraction, but as speed cameras have comprehensively failed we would be much better moving on altogether. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Tue 8 Jan 13

scrumpyjack says...

rayc wrote:
Seabeam wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
Good post, good arguement.

Better than some of the ramblings that have gone on and on by other posters above.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.[/p][/quote]Good post, good arguement. Better than some of the ramblings that have gone on and on by other posters above. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Melaaanie says...

Did the Echo report that in the case of Nick Barry, the lady who crashed into him pleaded guilty and was charged last month?
Did the Echo report that in the case of Nick Barry, the lady who crashed into him pleaded guilty and was charged last month? Melaaanie
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
No, it was a hypothetical if, let me type it out fully, correctly:

IF I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want.
Nah dont wash with me im afraid
Have you never seen a driver speed up once they have gone past a speed camera?
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No, it was a hypothetical if, let me type it out fully, correctly: IF I want to "break the law" by speeding, then I'm quite happy to keep our dangerous speed cameras, because I can easily avoid being detected and basically drive however I want.[/p][/quote]Nah dont wash with me im afraid[/p][/quote]Have you never seen a driver speed up once they have gone past a speed camera? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The Renegade Master says...

Seabeam wrote:
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
Complete rubbish.
The fixed cameras were one trick ponies that ceased to be a deterrent as soon as drivers knew where they were located and technology warned us where they were via our sat navs etc.
The idea of black boxes being installed in every car will never happen because any Government that pushes that legislation through would be voted out at the next election. No-one will ever accept the "big brother" watching you scenario.
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]Complete rubbish. The fixed cameras were one trick ponies that ceased to be a deterrent as soon as drivers knew where they were located and technology warned us where they were via our sat navs etc. The idea of black boxes being installed in every car will never happen because any Government that pushes that legislation through would be voted out at the next election. No-one will ever accept the "big brother" watching you scenario. The Renegade Master
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

FNS-man says...

rayc wrote:
Seabeam wrote:
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding?
If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand?

(Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.[/p][/quote]Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.) FNS-man
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value?
I'm not really sure, they are probably more dangerous as they cause more distraction, but as speed cameras have comprehensively failed we would be much better moving on altogether.
The statistics for the core mobile sites are on the roadsafe website. They make interesting reading and one thing that comes over is that there were rarely fatal collisions associated with them prior to the site being selected. The sites are more likely to be where the site gives good visibility and safe parking to the operator than in genuine fatal and serious collision locations.
Do they operate during the hours of darkness when the naughty boys are out?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value?[/p][/quote]I'm not really sure, they are probably more dangerous as they cause more distraction, but as speed cameras have comprehensively failed we would be much better moving on altogether.[/p][/quote]The statistics for the core mobile sites are on the roadsafe website. They make interesting reading and one thing that comes over is that there were rarely fatal collisions associated with them prior to the site being selected. The sites are more likely to be where the site gives good visibility and safe parking to the operator than in genuine fatal and serious collision locations. Do they operate during the hours of darkness when the naughty boys are out? rayc
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The Renegade Master says...

nosuchluck54 wrote:
The usual posters leaving comments to try and seek some justification to allow them to break the law.Unfortunately the laws of this country apply to us all and if you break those laws you are dealt with,not harshly enough in some cases but im afraid like it or not thats life
I take it then that you are in favour of the Police and DRS deliberately lobbying Councils for speed reductions on busy roads built for high speed traffic that then enable them to target motorists for revenue generation?
I take it you are in favour of Police officers being told to hide in bushes at the side of our roads with a radar gun to catch motorists doing 5mph over an already deliberately reduced speed limit instead of actually devoting his time to catching dangerous criminals?
I take it you've never been a victim of this money making scam and have never ever travelled slightly over a posted speed limit by mistake? Well done for being so perfect if that's the case!
[quote][p][bold]nosuchluck54[/bold] wrote: The usual posters leaving comments to try and seek some justification to allow them to break the law.Unfortunately the laws of this country apply to us all and if you break those laws you are dealt with,not harshly enough in some cases but im afraid like it or not thats life[/p][/quote]I take it then that you are in favour of the Police and DRS deliberately lobbying Councils for speed reductions on busy roads built for high speed traffic that then enable them to target motorists for revenue generation? I take it you are in favour of Police officers being told to hide in bushes at the side of our roads with a radar gun to catch motorists doing 5mph over an already deliberately reduced speed limit instead of actually devoting his time to catching dangerous criminals? I take it you've never been a victim of this money making scam and have never ever travelled slightly over a posted speed limit by mistake? Well done for being so perfect if that's the case! The Renegade Master
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Tue 8 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
rayc wrote:
Seabeam wrote:
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding?
If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand?

(Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)
The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it.

I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.[/p][/quote]Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it. I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Tue 8 Jan 13

nosuchluck54 says...

rayc wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value?
I'm not really sure, they are probably more dangerous as they cause more distraction, but as speed cameras have comprehensively failed we would be much better moving on altogether.
The statistics for the core mobile sites are on the roadsafe website. They make interesting reading and one thing that comes over is that there were rarely fatal collisions associated with them prior to the site being selected. The sites are more likely to be where the site gives good visibility and safe parking to the operator than in genuine fatal and serious collision locations.
Do they operate during the hours of darkness when the naughty boys are out?
If i break the law i pay the consequences,i do not boast to being a professional driver having driven for 25 years without collecting a fine or points like some,(although still waiting for that person to disclose what classes as a professional driver in his case) also i do not expect the laws to be tailored or changed for me because of my driving habits but some do.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- i presume that you must agree mobile cameras are better than fixed ones as they aren't obvious and can be anywhere therefore having a greater deterrent value?[/p][/quote]I'm not really sure, they are probably more dangerous as they cause more distraction, but as speed cameras have comprehensively failed we would be much better moving on altogether.[/p][/quote]The statistics for the core mobile sites are on the roadsafe website. They make interesting reading and one thing that comes over is that there were rarely fatal collisions associated with them prior to the site being selected. The sites are more likely to be where the site gives good visibility and safe parking to the operator than in genuine fatal and serious collision locations. Do they operate during the hours of darkness when the naughty boys are out?[/p][/quote]If i break the law i pay the consequences,i do not boast to being a professional driver having driven for 25 years without collecting a fine or points like some,(although still waiting for that person to disclose what classes as a professional driver in his case) also i do not expect the laws to be tailored or changed for me because of my driving habits but some do. nosuchluck54
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rayc says...

FNS-man wrote:
rayc wrote:
Seabeam wrote:
The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner.
I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased.
Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets.
Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding?
If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand?

(Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)
That's all well and good but is introducing even more technology into speed enforcement likely to make inroads into the increasing fatal collisions in Dorset?

As I have said repeatedly if catching drivers exceeding the speed limit is the name of the game then OK but in reducing fatal collisions it has clearly failed as they are bucking the national trend by increasing in Dorset.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.[/p][/quote]Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)[/p][/quote]That's all well and good but is introducing even more technology into speed enforcement likely to make inroads into the increasing fatal collisions in Dorset? As I have said repeatedly if catching drivers exceeding the speed limit is the name of the game then OK but in reducing fatal collisions it has clearly failed as they are bucking the national trend by increasing in Dorset. rayc
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Dibbles2 says...

EGHH wrote:
How many are drink or drug related? How many involved elderly drivers? How many young drivers?
Indeed and how many involved faulty vehicles, people on mobiles etc. The fact is that they all happened for a reason and regardless of the reason people should face the correct penalties of someone dies as a result. I drove from Winton to Wallisdown last week at about 7pm and my 9 year old son counted the amount of cars with faulty headlights. He got bored at 39 but that was 39 vehicles on a 1 mile stretch of road that were not legally fit to be driven. Something has to be done before more lives are lost and if that means bans or staking out pubs and clubs to apprehend repeat drink drivers and I know a few of those too but they never get caught then so be it. Life is irreplacable regardless of age.
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] wrote: How many are drink or drug related? How many involved elderly drivers? How many young drivers?[/p][/quote]Indeed and how many involved faulty vehicles, people on mobiles etc. The fact is that they all happened for a reason and regardless of the reason people should face the correct penalties of someone dies as a result. I drove from Winton to Wallisdown last week at about 7pm and my 9 year old son counted the amount of cars with faulty headlights. He got bored at 39 but that was 39 vehicles on a 1 mile stretch of road that were not legally fit to be driven. Something has to be done before more lives are lost and if that means bans or staking out pubs and clubs to apprehend repeat drink drivers and I know a few of those too but they never get caught then so be it. Life is irreplacable regardless of age. Dibbles2
  • Score: 0

12:25am Wed 9 Jan 13

DorsetEco says...

Take a look at the statistics for Dorset on this site
http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/332592
http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/332464
You will see that the number of accidents in total greatly exceeds the fatalities and it would be reasonable to conclude that, but for chance, many of the serious accidents could have resulted in fatalities.
You will see that the number of fatalities has declined over the eight year period of the data by 62%
You will also see that the number of collisions has also declined by 29%
The number of detected drink driving tests failures reduced by 33%

Drivers need to be cool headed, alert and concerned for the safety of others as well as their own.

A test to select those suitable to learn to drive would be well worthwhile.
Take a look at the statistics for Dorset on this site http://www.dorsetfor you.com/332592 http://www.dorsetfor you.com/332464 You will see that the number of accidents in total greatly exceeds the fatalities and it would be reasonable to conclude that, but for chance, many of the serious accidents could have resulted in fatalities. You will see that the number of fatalities has declined over the eight year period of the data by 62% You will also see that the number of collisions has also declined by 29% The number of detected drink driving tests failures reduced by 33% Drivers need to be cool headed, alert and concerned for the safety of others as well as their own. A test to select those suitable to learn to drive would be well worthwhile. DorsetEco
  • Score: 0

6:52am Wed 9 Jan 13

retry69 says...

DorsetEco wrote:
Take a look at the statistics for Dorset on this site
http://www.dorsetfor

you.com/332592
http://www.dorsetfor

you.com/332464
You will see that the number of accidents in total greatly exceeds the fatalities and it would be reasonable to conclude that, but for chance, many of the serious accidents could have resulted in fatalities.
You will see that the number of fatalities has declined over the eight year period of the data by 62%
You will also see that the number of collisions has also declined by 29%
The number of detected drink driving tests failures reduced by 33%

Drivers need to be cool headed, alert and concerned for the safety of others as well as their own.

A test to select those suitable to learn to drive would be well worthwhile.
And of course the introduction of re-tests for the over 50s would greatly reduce the amount of cars on our road aswell as a huge reduction in minor accidents and near misses.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetEco[/bold] wrote: Take a look at the statistics for Dorset on this site http://www.dorsetfor you.com/332592 http://www.dorsetfor you.com/332464 You will see that the number of accidents in total greatly exceeds the fatalities and it would be reasonable to conclude that, but for chance, many of the serious accidents could have resulted in fatalities. You will see that the number of fatalities has declined over the eight year period of the data by 62% You will also see that the number of collisions has also declined by 29% The number of detected drink driving tests failures reduced by 33% Drivers need to be cool headed, alert and concerned for the safety of others as well as their own. A test to select those suitable to learn to drive would be well worthwhile.[/p][/quote]And of course the introduction of re-tests for the over 50s would greatly reduce the amount of cars on our road aswell as a huge reduction in minor accidents and near misses. retry69
  • Score: 0

7:49am Wed 9 Jan 13

retry69 says...

And of course that fraction of car drivers that mistakenly break the speed limit (lack of concentration or lapse of judgement) will be re-educated in how to use a speedo as i have been informed many a time that they dont view a speedo because they are always looking ahead,absolute lunacy!
And of course that fraction of car drivers that mistakenly break the speed limit (lack of concentration or lapse of judgement) will be re-educated in how to use a speedo as i have been informed many a time that they dont view a speedo because they are always looking ahead,absolute lunacy! retry69
  • Score: 0

8:13am Wed 9 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

retry69 wrote:
And of course that fraction of car drivers that mistakenly break the speed limit (lack of concentration or lapse of judgement) will be re-educated in how to use a speedo as i have been informed many a time that they dont view a speedo because they are always looking ahead,absolute lunacy!
Actually, at places and times where speed really matters, perhaps picking up from school, anyone concerned with a 20 limit would be extremely dangerous as the safe speed would not be anything near this - more like walking pace. In those situations a good driver will be always looking ahead, not at their speedo
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: And of course that fraction of car drivers that mistakenly break the speed limit (lack of concentration or lapse of judgement) will be re-educated in how to use a speedo as i have been informed many a time that they dont view a speedo because they are always looking ahead,absolute lunacy![/p][/quote]Actually, at places and times where speed really matters, perhaps picking up from school, anyone concerned with a 20 limit would be extremely dangerous as the safe speed would not be anything near this - more like walking pace. In those situations a good driver will be always looking ahead, not at their speedo dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:21am Wed 9 Jan 13

retry69 says...

lets hope those professional drivers? take note
lets hope those professional drivers? take note retry69
  • Score: 0

10:41am Wed 9 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

dorsetspeed- how can you be so sure about fixed cameras but so vague about mobile ones- I thought you were the one with all the facts and figures at your fingertips? In what way do they cause a distraction? In the same way that traffic signs, traffic lights , other vehicles, pedestrians, bends, etc, etc, do? If drivers can't cope with multiple things to be aware of maybe they aren't best suited to driving at all!
dorsetspeed- how can you be so sure about fixed cameras but so vague about mobile ones- I thought you were the one with all the facts and figures at your fingertips? In what way do they cause a distraction? In the same way that traffic signs, traffic lights , other vehicles, pedestrians, bends, etc, etc, do? If drivers can't cope with multiple things to be aware of maybe they aren't best suited to driving at all! uvox44
  • Score: 0

10:44am Wed 9 Jan 13

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
rayc wrote:
Seabeam wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)
The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it. I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible.
No. Assuming your statistic is correct, it will be a figure for what was considered the cause of the accident. It is not a figure for what was the cause of the injuries. That was the whole point of my comment.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.[/p][/quote]Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it. I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible.[/p][/quote]No. Assuming your statistic is correct, it will be a figure for what was considered the cause of the accident. It is not a figure for what was the cause of the injuries. That was the whole point of my comment. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

10:47am Wed 9 Jan 13

retry69 says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- how can you be so sure about fixed cameras but so vague about mobile ones- I thought you were the one with all the facts and figures at your fingertips? In what way do they cause a distraction? In the same way that traffic signs, traffic lights , other vehicles, pedestrians, bends, etc, etc, do? If drivers can't cope with multiple things to be aware of maybe they aren't best suited to driving at all!
You see there is common sense in some drivers,you should be competent enough to drive your vehicle while being aware of surroundings,as you state if that is not within your capabilities then you should not be on the public roads and also uvox44 you well know facts and figures are there to be manipulated to the users benefit and if i could be bothered i could back that up with my own facts and figures which i have done in the past but are meaningless
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- how can you be so sure about fixed cameras but so vague about mobile ones- I thought you were the one with all the facts and figures at your fingertips? In what way do they cause a distraction? In the same way that traffic signs, traffic lights , other vehicles, pedestrians, bends, etc, etc, do? If drivers can't cope with multiple things to be aware of maybe they aren't best suited to driving at all![/p][/quote]You see there is common sense in some drivers,you should be competent enough to drive your vehicle while being aware of surroundings,as you state if that is not within your capabilities then you should not be on the public roads and also uvox44 you well know facts and figures are there to be manipulated to the users benefit and if i could be bothered i could back that up with my own facts and figures which i have done in the past but are meaningless retry69
  • Score: 0

11:02am Wed 9 Jan 13

really?? seriously?? says...

With so many safety devices in cars we think we can drive fast without fear of hurting ourselfs but forget about others. I`d also like to point out that pedestrians seem to think that its ok to just step out into the road and exspect you to stop (which of course you do) but they seem to think they have some kind of right of way?? (is it just me?) How about inforcing a retest for a small fee every 2 years, some people who have past there test seem to forget about the laws of the road. (indicating for one)
With so many safety devices in cars we think we can drive fast without fear of hurting ourselfs but forget about others. I`d also like to point out that pedestrians seem to think that its ok to just step out into the road and exspect you to stop (which of course you do) but they seem to think they have some kind of right of way?? (is it just me?) How about inforcing a retest for a small fee every 2 years, some people who have past there test seem to forget about the laws of the road. (indicating for one) really?? seriously??
  • Score: 0

11:05am Wed 9 Jan 13

rayc says...

A topic regarding the deaths of 25 people on Dorset roads and it all comes down to an argument about whether speed cameras are a deterrent or not. It is no wonder that the fatal collision rates are increasing when barely any of the 25 would have been prevented by a speed camera. Targetting the easy to detect is not going to solve the problem. We shall just have to hope that nobody has a fall on a bus or an unforeseen incident like a tunnel collapse occurs or drunken people do not take cars without their owners consent and then crash them this year to skew the 2013 fatal collision figures.
A topic regarding the deaths of 25 people on Dorset roads and it all comes down to an argument about whether speed cameras are a deterrent or not. It is no wonder that the fatal collision rates are increasing when barely any of the 25 would have been prevented by a speed camera. Targetting the easy to detect is not going to solve the problem. We shall just have to hope that nobody has a fall on a bus or an unforeseen incident like a tunnel collapse occurs or drunken people do not take cars without their owners consent and then crash them this year to skew the 2013 fatal collision figures. rayc
  • Score: 0

11:52am Wed 9 Jan 13

rayc says...

really?? seriously?? wrote:
With so many safety devices in cars we think we can drive fast without fear of hurting ourselfs but forget about others. I`d also like to point out that pedestrians seem to think that its ok to just step out into the road and exspect you to stop (which of course you do) but they seem to think they have some kind of right of way?? (is it just me?) How about inforcing a retest for a small fee every 2 years, some people who have past there test seem to forget about the laws of the road. (indicating for one)
"How about inforcing a retest for a small fee every 2 years, some people who have past there test seem to forget about the laws of the road".

How many drivers were prosecuted for their involvement in the 25 deaths in 2012? There are I believe 30 million licensed drivers in the UK so it would be a good earner but I doubt it would do much for casualty reduction.
[quote][p][bold]really?? seriously??[/bold] wrote: With so many safety devices in cars we think we can drive fast without fear of hurting ourselfs but forget about others. I`d also like to point out that pedestrians seem to think that its ok to just step out into the road and exspect you to stop (which of course you do) but they seem to think they have some kind of right of way?? (is it just me?) How about inforcing a retest for a small fee every 2 years, some people who have past there test seem to forget about the laws of the road. (indicating for one)[/p][/quote]"How about inforcing a retest for a small fee every 2 years, some people who have past there test seem to forget about the laws of the road". How many drivers were prosecuted for their involvement in the 25 deaths in 2012? There are I believe 30 million licensed drivers in the UK so it would be a good earner but I doubt it would do much for casualty reduction. rayc
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Wed 9 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- how can you be so sure about fixed cameras but so vague about mobile ones- I thought you were the one with all the facts and figures at your fingertips? In what way do they cause a distraction? In the same way that traffic signs, traffic lights , other vehicles, pedestrians, bends, etc, etc, do? If drivers can't cope with multiple things to be aware of maybe they aren't best suited to driving at all!
How do you mean sure about fixed and vague about mobile? Distractions like looking for them, and reactions like panic braking, as killed the motorcyclist recently. Yes, the motorcyclist was not blameless, but any "safety intervention" that actively turns bad driving into a death (possibly including others) is clearly a nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- how can you be so sure about fixed cameras but so vague about mobile ones- I thought you were the one with all the facts and figures at your fingertips? In what way do they cause a distraction? In the same way that traffic signs, traffic lights , other vehicles, pedestrians, bends, etc, etc, do? If drivers can't cope with multiple things to be aware of maybe they aren't best suited to driving at all![/p][/quote]How do you mean sure about fixed and vague about mobile? Distractions like looking for them, and reactions like panic braking, as killed the motorcyclist recently. Yes, the motorcyclist was not blameless, but any "safety intervention" that actively turns bad driving into a death (possibly including others) is clearly a nonsense. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Wed 9 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
rayc wrote:
Seabeam wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)
The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it. I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible.
No. Assuming your statistic is correct, it will be a figure for what was considered the cause of the accident. It is not a figure for what was the cause of the injuries. That was the whole point of my comment.
It is correct. Ok, exchange "7.6% of ksis" with "ksi accidents" if that helps.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.[/p][/quote]Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it. I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible.[/p][/quote]No. Assuming your statistic is correct, it will be a figure for what was considered the cause of the accident. It is not a figure for what was the cause of the injuries. That was the whole point of my comment.[/p][/quote]It is correct. Ok, exchange "7.6% of ksis" with "ksi accidents" if that helps. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Wed 9 Jan 13

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
rayc wrote:
Seabeam wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.
How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.
Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)
The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it. I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible.
No. Assuming your statistic is correct, it will be a figure for what was considered the cause of the accident. It is not a figure for what was the cause of the injuries. That was the whole point of my comment.
It is correct. Ok, exchange "7.6% of ksis" with "ksi accidents" if that helps.
Again missing the point.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] wrote: The government sent a message to drivers that speeding was acceptable by removing speed cameras. Drivers are now more likely to speed now they know for sure that there are no cameras around the next corner. I thought that accident numbers would increase when Cameron announced that cameras would be no more, and road accident numbers have increased. Drivers that wanted the end of fixed cameras have blood on their hands, and a few more pennies in their pockets. Satellite gps 'black boxes' in all cars now so that bad driving can be easily detected and good drivers can pay less insurance.[/p][/quote]How many of the 25 fatal collisions had speed above the speed limit as their main factor? The lady falling on the bus certainly not as were the two crushed to death in the tunnel. The driver apparently falling asleep on Poulner Hill and the two in the car which they had taken without the owners consent whilst under the influence of drink? The soldier killed whilst running along the A35 during the night, was the coach speeding? If you want to reduce the Fatal Collision statistics you need a new trick and not one that has been shown to fail.[/p][/quote]Even if excessive speed did not cause a crash, then it will increase the injuries caused by that crash. Driving around with a huge bomb in your boot will not cause you to have a crash, but it will make a crash more serious if one happens. Is that such a difficult thing to understand? (Actually that's not a great analogy, as the bomb is likely to hurt the driver. Speeding is likely to hurt other road users. And is hence a pathetic and cowardly crime.)[/p][/quote]The simple fact is that speeding is only a factor in only about 7.6% of ksis, and this has not reduced over the entire decade of obsession with speed and speeding. If you want to narrow mindedly pursue such a tiny opportunity to reduce suffering, fine, but it should be obvious by now that speed cameras won't do it. I'd prefer to look at the biggest factor which is simple driver error at 65%. Just reduce this a bit (achievable) and it would be a bigger total reduction than if speeding were entirely eliminated which is clearly impossible.[/p][/quote]No. Assuming your statistic is correct, it will be a figure for what was considered the cause of the accident. It is not a figure for what was the cause of the injuries. That was the whole point of my comment.[/p][/quote]It is correct. Ok, exchange "7.6% of ksis" with "ksi accidents" if that helps.[/p][/quote]Again missing the point. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Wed 9 Jan 13

uvox44 says...

dorsetspeed- what i meant was when i asked for your opinion on mobile cameras it was very vague in the way it was answered. As for cameras being a distraction and therefore dangerous you could say the same for anything that requires a driver to take action - bends,other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, junctions etc, etc, if the driver is so dopey that they can't take in the potential hazards they face and react in good time then they are dangerous and should consider taking public transport in future! And why panic brake anyway - if you kept to the speed limit then you wouldn't need to! The same reaction could happen on seeing a police car or officer with a radar gun - so maybe we should have no enforcement at all in case it causes dopey drivers to panic and crash! What a bizarre arguement!
dorsetspeed- what i meant was when i asked for your opinion on mobile cameras it was very vague in the way it was answered. As for cameras being a distraction and therefore dangerous you could say the same for anything that requires a driver to take action - bends,other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, junctions etc, etc, if the driver is so dopey that they can't take in the potential hazards they face and react in good time then they are dangerous and should consider taking public transport in future! And why panic brake anyway - if you kept to the speed limit then you wouldn't need to! The same reaction could happen on seeing a police car or officer with a radar gun - so maybe we should have no enforcement at all in case it causes dopey drivers to panic and crash! What a bizarre arguement! uvox44
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Wed 9 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- what i meant was when i asked for your opinion on mobile cameras it was very vague in the way it was answered. As for cameras being a distraction and therefore dangerous you could say the same for anything that requires a driver to take action - bends,other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, junctions etc, etc, if the driver is so dopey that they can't take in the potential hazards they face and react in good time then they are dangerous and should consider taking public transport in future! And why panic brake anyway - if you kept to the speed limit then you wouldn't need to! The same reaction could happen on seeing a police car or officer with a radar gun - so maybe we should have no enforcement at all in case it causes dopey drivers to panic and crash! What a bizarre arguement!
We have no choice, we have to have bends,other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, junctions. But we do have one choice, we don't have to have cameras.

Panic braking occurs even within the limit. Unmarked cars are the best way to police the roads without distraction.

As you point out, any enforcement method has risks, this is exactly why the risks have to be properly understood, assessed, and managed. Dorset Road Unsafe on the other hand have actually stated that there are no risks and have even gone as far as stating that they refuse to talk to camera operators about dangerous driver reaction. They are therefore in breach of fundamental safety process and completely unsuitable to even sweep the roads, let alone police them.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- what i meant was when i asked for your opinion on mobile cameras it was very vague in the way it was answered. As for cameras being a distraction and therefore dangerous you could say the same for anything that requires a driver to take action - bends,other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, junctions etc, etc, if the driver is so dopey that they can't take in the potential hazards they face and react in good time then they are dangerous and should consider taking public transport in future! And why panic brake anyway - if you kept to the speed limit then you wouldn't need to! The same reaction could happen on seeing a police car or officer with a radar gun - so maybe we should have no enforcement at all in case it causes dopey drivers to panic and crash! What a bizarre arguement![/p][/quote]We have no choice, we have to have bends,other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, junctions. But we do have one choice, we don't have to have cameras. Panic braking occurs even within the limit. Unmarked cars are the best way to police the roads without distraction. As you point out, any enforcement method has risks, this is exactly why the risks have to be properly understood, assessed, and managed. Dorset Road Unsafe on the other hand have actually stated that there are no risks and have even gone as far as stating that they refuse to talk to camera operators about dangerous driver reaction. They are therefore in breach of fundamental safety process and completely unsuitable to even sweep the roads, let alone police them. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 9 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

Fns-man, not sure what point I’m missing. If in your analogy, the bomb caused injuries, it would have been recorded (somehow) as a factor. If an injury / death accident involves a speeding vehicle, amongst any number of other factors, speeding is recorded as a factor. 92.4% of ksi accidents do NOT have speeding as a factor. Of course, deaths and serious injuries occur within the limit. Are you suggesting that regardless of the limit, we should all drive at 5MPH in case we have an accident?
Fns-man, not sure what point I’m missing. If in your analogy, the bomb caused injuries, it would have been recorded (somehow) as a factor. If an injury / death accident involves a speeding vehicle, amongst any number of other factors, speeding is recorded as a factor. 92.4% of ksi accidents do NOT have speeding as a factor. Of course, deaths and serious injuries occur within the limit. Are you suggesting that regardless of the limit, we should all drive at 5MPH in case we have an accident? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Seabeam says...

Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash.
The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud.
All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment.
Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more.
Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe.
The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us.
Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash. The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud. All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment. Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more. Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe. The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Seabeam says...

Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash.
The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud.
All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment.
Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more.
Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe.
The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us.
Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash. The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud. All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment. Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more. Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe. The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Seabeam says...

Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash.
The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud.
All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment.
Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more.
Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe.
The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us.
Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash. The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud. All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment. Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more. Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe. The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Wed 9 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

Seabeam, making money and improving driving standards are 2 entirely different things. Speed cameras help people to drive badly – all they have to do is drive slowly in front of bright yellow boxes (even if too close, drunk, etc) and they can do what they want on the 99% of remaining road space. Cameron (like all politicians) is an idiot but let’s not get too off topic.
Seabeam, making money and improving driving standards are 2 entirely different things. Speed cameras help people to drive badly – all they have to do is drive slowly in front of bright yellow boxes (even if too close, drunk, etc) and they can do what they want on the 99% of remaining road space. Cameron (like all politicians) is an idiot but let’s not get too off topic. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Seabeam says...

Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash.
The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud.
All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment.
Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more.
Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe.
The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us.
Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash. The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud. All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment. Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more. Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe. The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Seabeam says...

Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash.
The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud.
All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment.
Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more.
Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe.
The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us.
Ok, so fixed speed cameras have no place in improving driving standards? If that was the case then they would never have raised any cash. The whole argument about big brother watching you is so tired, cliche. Walking through town I am being watched so why not when driving a ton of metal at speed. Also black boxes record more than just speed and can indicate who is at fault in a collision, so a boon to good drivers and those not intent on insurance fraud. All i hear is drivers who dislike having to drive well and considerately moaning on about being fleeced by fiscal enforcement when the alternative is other punishment. Perhaps a short term in prison or community service would suit them more. Cameron reduces fuel duty then takes cash from the disabled. Popular vote grabbing relient on the most base selfish motivations caring not for the old lady who wants to cross the road safely to get her pension, or the child cold parents unable to heat their house. The bigoted car driver who wants to drive as fast as they like in their Merc in the knowledge that there is no comeback is Camerons cliqe. The tory wants the right to drive his 4wd through the crowd of plebs at breakneck speed so he dosent have to see those lower beings. Back to his country estate where he counts the extra cash he has bled from us contemptable rabble. Then off to,the States when his time is up where he no longer has toview the mess he created, that is left for us. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Seabeam says...

Not twice, but thrice. Nice
Not twice, but thrice. Nice Seabeam
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Wed 9 Jan 13

PokesdownMark says...

Sunbeam, you are suggesting that Merc drivers are bigots that drive fast through an arrogant assumption of entitlement. Irony.

Back to the topic though, while looking at the latest Dorset Camera Safety statistics I saw that several of the static cameras have HUGE numbers of prosecutions. Just taking the first few:

Talbot Ave 818,
Castle Lane 1851 (!)
Castle Hill 1135,
B3068 Ringwood Rd Alderney 997, Stanley Green Rd 1277
Sandford Rd 2670 (!)
Lymington Rd 1398.

Thats more than 10,000 in a year from just those. So much for the cameras stopping speeding. So why are the published KSI's at those camera sites not falling to zero? in fact at many they are higher in 2011 than 2010 and 2009. Its a very odd but fascinating set of numbers with conflicting interpretations. The static cameras do not have falling numbers of NIPs so drivers aren't learning. There is NO connection between number of NIPs and collision injury severity. I'm not sure what to make of it. Its clearly a BIG money earner though.
Sunbeam, you are suggesting that Merc drivers are bigots that drive fast through an arrogant assumption of entitlement. Irony. Back to the topic though, while looking at the latest Dorset Camera Safety statistics I saw that several of the static cameras have HUGE numbers of prosecutions. Just taking the first few: Talbot Ave 818, Castle Lane 1851 (!) Castle Hill 1135, B3068 Ringwood Rd Alderney 997, Stanley Green Rd 1277 Sandford Rd 2670 (!) Lymington Rd 1398. Thats more than 10,000 in a year from just those. So much for the cameras stopping speeding. So why are the published KSI's at those camera sites not falling to zero? in fact at many they are higher in 2011 than 2010 and 2009. Its a very odd but fascinating set of numbers with conflicting interpretations. The static cameras do not have falling numbers of NIPs so drivers aren't learning. There is NO connection between number of NIPs and collision injury severity. I'm not sure what to make of it. Its clearly a BIG money earner though. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Wed 9 Jan 13

rayc says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
Sunbeam, you are suggesting that Merc drivers are bigots that drive fast through an arrogant assumption of entitlement. Irony.

Back to the topic though, while looking at the latest Dorset Camera Safety statistics I saw that several of the static cameras have HUGE numbers of prosecutions. Just taking the first few:

Talbot Ave 818,
Castle Lane 1851 (!)
Castle Hill 1135,
B3068 Ringwood Rd Alderney 997, Stanley Green Rd 1277
Sandford Rd 2670 (!)
Lymington Rd 1398.

Thats more than 10,000 in a year from just those. So much for the cameras stopping speeding. So why are the published KSI's at those camera sites not falling to zero? in fact at many they are higher in 2011 than 2010 and 2009. Its a very odd but fascinating set of numbers with conflicting interpretations. The static cameras do not have falling numbers of NIPs so drivers aren't learning. There is NO connection between number of NIPs and collision injury severity. I'm not sure what to make of it. Its clearly a BIG money earner though.
Like yourself I have spent some time studying the data. I can't help coming to the conclusion that the most 'profitable' sites are not those with the highest casualties. Like yourself I am not sure what I can make of it but no doubt the authorities use it to justify more of the same.
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: Sunbeam, you are suggesting that Merc drivers are bigots that drive fast through an arrogant assumption of entitlement. Irony. Back to the topic though, while looking at the latest Dorset Camera Safety statistics I saw that several of the static cameras have HUGE numbers of prosecutions. Just taking the first few: Talbot Ave 818, Castle Lane 1851 (!) Castle Hill 1135, B3068 Ringwood Rd Alderney 997, Stanley Green Rd 1277 Sandford Rd 2670 (!) Lymington Rd 1398. Thats more than 10,000 in a year from just those. So much for the cameras stopping speeding. So why are the published KSI's at those camera sites not falling to zero? in fact at many they are higher in 2011 than 2010 and 2009. Its a very odd but fascinating set of numbers with conflicting interpretations. The static cameras do not have falling numbers of NIPs so drivers aren't learning. There is NO connection between number of NIPs and collision injury severity. I'm not sure what to make of it. Its clearly a BIG money earner though.[/p][/quote]Like yourself I have spent some time studying the data. I can't help coming to the conclusion that the most 'profitable' sites are not those with the highest casualties. Like yourself I am not sure what I can make of it but no doubt the authorities use it to justify more of the same. rayc
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Wed 9 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

The simple fact is that static cameras don't effect ksi's whatsoever, any benefit they might provide being cancelled out by the negative effects (rear ending due to sudden braking, etc.) Probably many being caught are simply from out of the area so are not used to braking for them, and there is an almost endless supply of unfamiliar drivers. Most of these cameras have a car passing perhaps every 10 seconds on average, that's about 8000 a day so it's a tiny percentage (0.03%) being caught, there will always be a trickle.

But yes, the only reason they are there is to make money. The killer is that while absurd justifications are made based on safety, attention is taken from what we should be doing to reduce ksis.
The simple fact is that static cameras don't effect ksi's whatsoever, any benefit they might provide being cancelled out by the negative effects (rear ending due to sudden braking, etc.) Probably many being caught are simply from out of the area so are not used to braking for them, and there is an almost endless supply of unfamiliar drivers. Most of these cameras have a car passing perhaps every 10 seconds on average, that's about 8000 a day so it's a tiny percentage (0.03%) being caught, there will always be a trickle. But yes, the only reason they are there is to make money. The killer is that while absurd justifications are made based on safety, attention is taken from what we should be doing to reduce ksis. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Dorset Logic says...

Seabeam says...

I like to make things dramatic
Seabeam says... I like to make things dramatic Dorset Logic
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Thu 10 Jan 13

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The simple fact is that static cameras don't effect ksi's whatsoever, any benefit they might provide being cancelled out by the negative effects (rear ending due to sudden braking, etc.) Probably many being caught are simply from out of the area so are not used to braking for them, and there is an almost endless supply of unfamiliar drivers. Most of these cameras have a car passing perhaps every 10 seconds on average, that's about 8000 a day so it's a tiny percentage (0.03%) being caught, there will always be a trickle. But yes, the only reason they are there is to make money. The killer is that while absurd justifications are made based on safety, attention is taken from what we should be doing to reduce ksis.
So the answer is to have loads and loads of hidden cameras that people cannot see, and so will not react to.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: The simple fact is that static cameras don't effect ksi's whatsoever, any benefit they might provide being cancelled out by the negative effects (rear ending due to sudden braking, etc.) Probably many being caught are simply from out of the area so are not used to braking for them, and there is an almost endless supply of unfamiliar drivers. Most of these cameras have a car passing perhaps every 10 seconds on average, that's about 8000 a day so it's a tiny percentage (0.03%) being caught, there will always be a trickle. But yes, the only reason they are there is to make money. The killer is that while absurd justifications are made based on safety, attention is taken from what we should be doing to reduce ksis.[/p][/quote]So the answer is to have loads and loads of hidden cameras that people cannot see, and so will not react to. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Thu 10 Jan 13

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The simple fact is that static cameras don't effect ksi's whatsoever, any benefit they might provide being cancelled out by the negative effects (rear ending due to sudden braking, etc.) Probably many being caught are simply from out of the area so are not used to braking for them, and there is an almost endless supply of unfamiliar drivers. Most of these cameras have a car passing perhaps every 10 seconds on average, that's about 8000 a day so it's a tiny percentage (0.03%) being caught, there will always be a trickle. But yes, the only reason they are there is to make money. The killer is that while absurd justifications are made based on safety, attention is taken from what we should be doing to reduce ksis.
So the answer is to have loads and loads of hidden cameras that people cannot see, and so will not react to.
You don't want load and loads of anything that only addresses a tiny part of the problem (7.6%) What you do want is a professional process that identifies the strategies that will best address as much of the problem as possible. As I mentioned, Dorset Road Unsafe wouldn't recognise professional process if it slapped them in the face.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: The simple fact is that static cameras don't effect ksi's whatsoever, any benefit they might provide being cancelled out by the negative effects (rear ending due to sudden braking, etc.) Probably many being caught are simply from out of the area so are not used to braking for them, and there is an almost endless supply of unfamiliar drivers. Most of these cameras have a car passing perhaps every 10 seconds on average, that's about 8000 a day so it's a tiny percentage (0.03%) being caught, there will always be a trickle. But yes, the only reason they are there is to make money. The killer is that while absurd justifications are made based on safety, attention is taken from what we should be doing to reduce ksis.[/p][/quote]So the answer is to have loads and loads of hidden cameras that people cannot see, and so will not react to.[/p][/quote]You don't want load and loads of anything that only addresses a tiny part of the problem (7.6%) What you do want is a professional process that identifies the strategies that will best address as much of the problem as possible. As I mentioned, Dorset Road Unsafe wouldn't recognise professional process if it slapped them in the face. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree