102 speeding drivers and seven not wearing seatbelts - what police saw in one-day operation

File picture

File picture

First published in News
Last updated

DORSET Police caught more than 180 motorists breaking the law by offences including speeding or using a mobile phone last Sunday, April 6.

As part of the force’s No Excuse campaign, a team of 70 Special Constables assisted by traffic officers and police took part in Operation Puzzle in East Dorset and North Dorset at the weekend.

Of the total, seven Fixed Penalty Notices were issued to drivers or passengers for not wearing seatbelts, and 102 motorists were caught speeding in the Blandford and Gillingham areas.

Depending on their eligibility they will have the option of a Driver Awareness Course, a court hearing or a £100 fine and three penalty points on their licence.

Brian Austin, No Excuse project manager, said: “These statistics clearly show that motorists are continuing to flout the law.

“Speeding and driving while using a phone are the main factors in fatal and serious injury collisions.

“Not wearing a seatbelt significantly increases the chances of sustaining life-changing injuries.”

Comments (162)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:27am Thu 10 Apr 14

rayc says...

"70 Special Constables assisted by traffic officers and police took part in Operation Puzzle in East Dorset and North Dorset at the weekend".

If this is the best use that can be made of their time then all must be well crime wise in Dorset. I wonder how many of the 180 will actually have a court hearing as opposed to the offer of a Driver Awareness Course?
"70 Special Constables assisted by traffic officers and police took part in Operation Puzzle in East Dorset and North Dorset at the weekend". If this is the best use that can be made of their time then all must be well crime wise in Dorset. I wonder how many of the 180 will actually have a court hearing as opposed to the offer of a Driver Awareness Course? rayc
  • Score: 6

8:35am Thu 10 Apr 14

hooplaa says...

If you put 70 police officers on a specific task of course the numbers caught will be higher!

Its not something to shout about, it means you are not having a positive affect with your campaigns!
If you put 70 police officers on a specific task of course the numbers caught will be higher! Its not something to shout about, it means you are not having a positive affect with your campaigns! hooplaa
  • Score: 22

8:42am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Brian Austin, No Excuse project manager, said: “These statistics clearly show that motorists are continuing to flout the law."

Yes Brian, we know that. It's because your "no excuse" scheme is a failure. But most of the 180 will be going on the course at £110, so that's £20,000 for a few hours work to keep your job going, well done.
Brian Austin, No Excuse project manager, said: “These statistics clearly show that motorists are continuing to flout the law." Yes Brian, we know that. It's because your "no excuse" scheme is a failure. But most of the 180 will be going on the course at £110, so that's £20,000 for a few hours work to keep your job going, well done. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 42

9:03am Thu 10 Apr 14

rayc says...

According to Dorset Police "Operation Puzzle is designed to allow members of the volunteer police service of Dorset to command and take control of frontline policing duties. A total of 70 special constables are expected to take part in this exciting weekend, with officers assigned to a number of sections across the county."
It appears that all 70 were spent on the No Excuse Project. If that is "taking control of front line services" then there is a question mark over Dorset police priorities. I can not understand how it is "exciting" but it all helps the Driver awareness course gravy train.

Read more: http://www.westernga
zette.co.uk/Special-
Constables-control-w
eekend/story-2091318
9-detail/story.html#
ixzz2yT5gleNx"
According to Dorset Police "Operation Puzzle is designed to allow members of the volunteer police service of Dorset to command and take control of frontline policing duties. A total of 70 special constables are expected to take part in this exciting weekend, with officers assigned to a number of sections across the county." It appears that all 70 were spent on the No Excuse Project. If that is "taking control of front line services" then there is a question mark over Dorset police priorities. I can not understand how it is "exciting" but it all helps the Driver awareness course gravy train. Read more: http://www.westernga zette.co.uk/Special- Constables-control-w eekend/story-2091318 9-detail/story.html# ixzz2yT5gleNx" rayc
  • Score: 13

9:18am Thu 10 Apr 14

Tictock says...

Wow! Would have thought that with more thought and planning/execution that resource would have a better net result? Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind. Well, it was a nice day and made a change from cutting the grass and washing the car for the Specials.
Wow! Would have thought that with more thought and planning/execution that resource would have a better net result? Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind. Well, it was a nice day and made a change from cutting the grass and washing the car for the Specials. Tictock
  • Score: 13

9:20am Thu 10 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

When you see the constant reports of car "accidents" reported in Dorset,it's pretty obvious that the people here drive like the **** that they are.
When you see the constant reports of car "accidents" reported in Dorset,it's pretty obvious that the people here drive like the **** that they are. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 36

9:20am Thu 10 Apr 14

anotherfatslob says...

When you see the constant reports of car "accidents" reported in Dorset,it's pretty obvious that the people here drive like the **** that they are.
When you see the constant reports of car "accidents" reported in Dorset,it's pretty obvious that the people here drive like the **** that they are. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 3

9:21am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

I would have thought that better use could have been found of 70 cardboard coppers assisted by regular police under present circumstances with police commissioners bleating about money shortages.
Then I suppose that the driver awareness course at £100 a pop for 3 hours work is a good little earner.
I would have thought that better use could have been found of 70 cardboard coppers assisted by regular police under present circumstances with police commissioners bleating about money shortages. Then I suppose that the driver awareness course at £100 a pop for 3 hours work is a good little earner. Hessenford
  • Score: 4

9:21am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

rayc wrote:
According to Dorset Police "Operation Puzzle is designed to allow members of the volunteer police service of Dorset to command and take control of frontline policing duties. A total of 70 special constables are expected to take part in this exciting weekend, with officers assigned to a number of sections across the county."
It appears that all 70 were spent on the No Excuse Project. If that is "taking control of front line services" then there is a question mark over Dorset police priorities. I can not understand how it is "exciting" but it all helps the Driver awareness course gravy train.

Read more: http://www.westernga

zette.co.uk/Special-

Constables-control-w

eekend/story-2091318

9-detail/story.html#

ixzz2yT5gleNx"
Amazing, so they are even using free labour to make £20,000 in a few hours! You could hardly make it up! What an obscene waste of a potentially useful resource.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: According to Dorset Police "Operation Puzzle is designed to allow members of the volunteer police service of Dorset to command and take control of frontline policing duties. A total of 70 special constables are expected to take part in this exciting weekend, with officers assigned to a number of sections across the county." It appears that all 70 were spent on the No Excuse Project. If that is "taking control of front line services" then there is a question mark over Dorset police priorities. I can not understand how it is "exciting" but it all helps the Driver awareness course gravy train. Read more: http://www.westernga zette.co.uk/Special- Constables-control-w eekend/story-2091318 9-detail/story.html# ixzz2yT5gleNx"[/p][/quote]Amazing, so they are even using free labour to make £20,000 in a few hours! You could hardly make it up! What an obscene waste of a potentially useful resource. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

9:28am Thu 10 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws? Stereotyped
  • Score: 48

9:34am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

9:34am Thu 10 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Please stop being so critical of these 'driver awareness' courses, because they are such a handy way for 'retired' Police Officers to top up their pensions when they hit their fifties.
Please stop being so critical of these 'driver awareness' courses, because they are such a handy way for 'retired' Police Officers to top up their pensions when they hit their fifties. muscliffman
  • Score: 6

9:39am Thu 10 Apr 14

black_rat says...

..and if the numbers of Traffic officers hadn't been cut by 50%, more speed/driving standard enforcement would occur on 365 days of the year instead of a single event that probably lasted 6 hours and reached less than 5% of the drivers in Dorset !!!!
..and if the numbers of Traffic officers hadn't been cut by 50%, more speed/driving standard enforcement would occur on 365 days of the year instead of a single event that probably lasted 6 hours and reached less than 5% of the drivers in Dorset !!!! black_rat
  • Score: 29

9:39am Thu 10 Apr 14

Lord Spring says...

And not one cyclist caught breaking the law.
And not one cyclist caught breaking the law. Lord Spring
  • Score: 27

9:47am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway. Hessenford
  • Score: 15

9:48am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

Lord Spring wrote:
And not one cyclist caught breaking the law.
Unfortunately speed cameras do not point towards red traffic lights.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: And not one cyclist caught breaking the law.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately speed cameras do not point towards red traffic lights. Hessenford
  • Score: 13

9:53am Thu 10 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Hessenford wrote:
Lord Spring wrote:
And not one cyclist caught breaking the law.
Unfortunately speed cameras do not point towards red traffic lights.
And how would any type of road side enforcement camera identify a cyclist?

Don't worry the bad cyclists already know the answer.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: And not one cyclist caught breaking the law.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately speed cameras do not point towards red traffic lights.[/p][/quote]And how would any type of road side enforcement camera identify a cyclist? Don't worry the bad cyclists already know the answer. muscliffman
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 10 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.
So what's the solution then? Perhaps you could actually come up with some positive ideas for once, instead of continually criticising the police for everything and anything they do?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.[/p][/quote]So what's the solution then? Perhaps you could actually come up with some positive ideas for once, instead of continually criticising the police for everything and anything they do? The Liberal
  • Score: 19

9:57am Thu 10 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine. The Liberal
  • Score: 6

10:01am Thu 10 Apr 14

MotorbikeSam says...

Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car
only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life!
And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life! And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !! MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 15

10:05am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.
So what's the solution then? Perhaps you could actually come up with some positive ideas for once, instead of continually criticising the police for everything and anything they do?
There are loads of solutions but these won't get anywhere until the dishonest, money making regime is ended. This is the first step and by far the biggest challenge..
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.[/p][/quote]So what's the solution then? Perhaps you could actually come up with some positive ideas for once, instead of continually criticising the police for everything and anything they do?[/p][/quote]There are loads of solutions but these won't get anywhere until the dishonest, money making regime is ended. This is the first step and by far the biggest challenge.. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -12

10:10am Thu 10 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.
It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic. The Liberal
  • Score: 33

10:12am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car
only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life!
And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !!
A simplistic and emotional response. The safe speed is determined by more than just a number in a circle. Is it raining, is there visibility, are there people around or objects that could hide them? Is the driver watching the road? So a number cannot and does not determine some magical threshold of safety above which people get killed and below which they do not. For much of the time it is necessary to drive below the limit to be safe in built up areas. Speed limits are an important part of road safety, and they need to be enforced, but when you overstate / overestimate the value of any one safety solution of another, you get the balance wrong, and when you get the safety balance wrong, you end up with more "dead loved ones" than if you take a proper, balanced approach.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life! And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !![/p][/quote]A simplistic and emotional response. The safe speed is determined by more than just a number in a circle. Is it raining, is there visibility, are there people around or objects that could hide them? Is the driver watching the road? So a number cannot and does not determine some magical threshold of safety above which people get killed and below which they do not. For much of the time it is necessary to drive below the limit to be safe in built up areas. Speed limits are an important part of road safety, and they need to be enforced, but when you overstate / overestimate the value of any one safety solution of another, you get the balance wrong, and when you get the safety balance wrong, you end up with more "dead loved ones" than if you take a proper, balanced approach. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 7

10:14am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car
only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life!
And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !!
I did say dual carriageway not a built up area, when the law says you can drive with a certain amount of booze inside you I would say that people drive after drinking with the laws blessing.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life! And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !![/p][/quote]I did say dual carriageway not a built up area, when the law says you can drive with a certain amount of booze inside you I would say that people drive after drinking with the laws blessing. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

10:14am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

The Liberal wrote:
It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.
I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 10

10:16am Thu 10 Apr 14

Dorset Mitch says...

Agree with it or not is one question, but in my opinion speed does cause all accidents, it is however a major factor in the outcome of the accident. I believe the biggest cuase of accidents is the lack of skill. But since they (the powers that be) are not looking to make testing harder, retest drivers after certain periods (every ten years when you re-new your licence) which will keep peoples road skills up, then they will go after the motorist for speeding and mobile phone use.

As for driving without your seatbelt, that is just plain stupid it takes 2 seconds and will reduce injury should someone hit you. After all we are all the best drivers on the road, its everyone else who is wrong...
Agree with it or not is one question, but in my opinion speed does cause all accidents, it is however a major factor in the outcome of the accident. I believe the biggest cuase of accidents is the lack of skill. But since they (the powers that be) are not looking to make testing harder, retest drivers after certain periods (every ten years when you re-new your licence) which will keep peoples road skills up, then they will go after the motorist for speeding and mobile phone use. As for driving without your seatbelt, that is just plain stupid it takes 2 seconds and will reduce injury should someone hit you. After all we are all the best drivers on the road, its everyone else who is wrong... Dorset Mitch
  • Score: 3

10:20am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact. Hessenford
  • Score: 3

10:22am Thu 10 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.
I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.
Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki
ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.[/p][/quote]Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about. The Liberal
  • Score: 15

10:23am Thu 10 Apr 14

uvox44 says...

Wow Rayc got in early on this one! And where there's Ray and his it's just about tax conspiracy theories you can be sure DorsetSpeed won't be far behind. Strange they don't seem to find the fact that fines are used in other areas of law to be a problem but then there's no one more blinkered than a blinkered motorist it seems- driving ISN'T an inalienable right, you ARE in charge of a potentially lethal machine, you DO have a responsibilty to others, not just in law but morally, STOP moaning if you are caught, START acting like grown-ups!
Wow Rayc got in early on this one! And where there's Ray and his it's just about tax conspiracy theories you can be sure DorsetSpeed won't be far behind. Strange they don't seem to find the fact that fines are used in other areas of law to be a problem but then there's no one more blinkered than a blinkered motorist it seems- driving ISN'T an inalienable right, you ARE in charge of a potentially lethal machine, you DO have a responsibilty to others, not just in law but morally, STOP moaning if you are caught, START acting like grown-ups! uvox44
  • Score: 9

10:23am Thu 10 Apr 14

High Treason says...

The same arrogant idiots blaming the police and the roads for accidents. When the police enforce the law the same idiots complain about that. Time to up the fines for the persistent offenders and crush a few cars for the arrogant idiots.
The same arrogant idiots blaming the police and the roads for accidents. When the police enforce the law the same idiots complain about that. Time to up the fines for the persistent offenders and crush a few cars for the arrogant idiots. High Treason
  • Score: 25

10:29am Thu 10 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

Hessenford wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.
Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing).
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing). The Liberal
  • Score: 6

10:29am Thu 10 Apr 14

uvox44 says...

Rayc and Dorsetspeed are to road safety what Owen Paterson and right wing "Tea Party" Americans are to climate change!
Rayc and Dorsetspeed are to road safety what Owen Paterson and right wing "Tea Party" Americans are to climate change! uvox44
  • Score: -5

10:44am Thu 10 Apr 14

uvox44 says...

and these are the people who moan they don't want speed cameras but real police who can check on a wider range of driving crimes (fair point) but surprise , surprise then also moan when that happens- showing what they really are all about is the selfish and irresponsible belief that they should be allowed to drive however they want and not face any consequences.
and these are the people who moan they don't want speed cameras but real police who can check on a wider range of driving crimes (fair point) but surprise , surprise then also moan when that happens- showing what they really are all about is the selfish and irresponsible belief that they should be allowed to drive however they want and not face any consequences. uvox44
  • Score: 6

10:46am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
Wow Rayc got in early on this one! And where there's Ray and his it's just about tax conspiracy theories you can be sure DorsetSpeed won't be far behind. Strange they don't seem to find the fact that fines are used in other areas of law to be a problem but then there's no one more blinkered than a blinkered motorist it seems- driving ISN'T an inalienable right, you ARE in charge of a potentially lethal machine, you DO have a responsibilty to others, not just in law but morally, STOP moaning if you are caught, START acting like grown-ups!
I would be more comfortable with "fines" if there was some transparency about where the money goes and acknowledgement and control of the financial motivations. Nothing else in policing makes vast profits like the driver course. It is simply obscene that he who helps to choose the "safety" operations, Brian Austin, would probably be out of work if he did not happen to choose the financially attractive operations. Dorset Police have fought to keep the detail of the course costs secret for 3 years now. I know what professional safety work looks like and I can assure you this is not it. I'm not moaning about being caught, I'm moaning about the lack of integrity and dishonesty that Dorset Police blatantly demonstrate and the negative effect this has on road safety.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: Wow Rayc got in early on this one! And where there's Ray and his it's just about tax conspiracy theories you can be sure DorsetSpeed won't be far behind. Strange they don't seem to find the fact that fines are used in other areas of law to be a problem but then there's no one more blinkered than a blinkered motorist it seems- driving ISN'T an inalienable right, you ARE in charge of a potentially lethal machine, you DO have a responsibilty to others, not just in law but morally, STOP moaning if you are caught, START acting like grown-ups![/p][/quote]I would be more comfortable with "fines" if there was some transparency about where the money goes and acknowledgement and control of the financial motivations. Nothing else in policing makes vast profits like the driver course. It is simply obscene that he who helps to choose the "safety" operations, Brian Austin, would probably be out of work if he did not happen to choose the financially attractive operations. Dorset Police have fought to keep the detail of the course costs secret for 3 years now. I know what professional safety work looks like and I can assure you this is not it. I'm not moaning about being caught, I'm moaning about the lack of integrity and dishonesty that Dorset Police blatantly demonstrate and the negative effect this has on road safety. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -4

10:47am Thu 10 Apr 14

uvox44 says...

strange how Rayc and DS argue against speed cameras in favour of real policing to catch a wider range of driving crimes, yet when this happens they STILL moan - think your true agenda is becoming clear , don't you?
strange how Rayc and DS argue against speed cameras in favour of real policing to catch a wider range of driving crimes, yet when this happens they STILL moan - think your true agenda is becoming clear , don't you? uvox44
  • Score: -1

10:48am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
and these are the people who moan they don't want speed cameras but real police who can check on a wider range of driving crimes (fair point) but surprise , surprise then also moan when that happens- showing what they really are all about is the selfish and irresponsible belief that they should be allowed to drive however they want and not face any consequences.
A bunch of "volunteers" doing what Brian Austin wants does not constitute real traffic police work!!
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: and these are the people who moan they don't want speed cameras but real police who can check on a wider range of driving crimes (fair point) but surprise , surprise then also moan when that happens- showing what they really are all about is the selfish and irresponsible belief that they should be allowed to drive however they want and not face any consequences.[/p][/quote]A bunch of "volunteers" doing what Brian Austin wants does not constitute real traffic police work!! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

10:50am Thu 10 Apr 14

uvox44 says...

DS - are you actually reading the same article as everyone else? Here is the part you seem to have missed :
"As part of the force’s No Excuse campaign, a team of 70 Special Constables assisted by traffic officers and police took part in Operation Puzzle in East Dorset and North Dorset at the weekend. "
DS - are you actually reading the same article as everyone else? Here is the part you seem to have missed : "As part of the force’s No Excuse campaign, a team of 70 Special Constables assisted by traffic officers and police took part in Operation Puzzle in East Dorset and North Dorset at the weekend. " uvox44
  • Score: 2

10:54am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.
Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing).
Acpo guidelines state 50mph limit, 57 mph fixed penalty when education is not appropriate, speed awareness if appropriate from 57mph to 64mph.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing).[/p][/quote]Acpo guidelines state 50mph limit, 57 mph fixed penalty when education is not appropriate, speed awareness if appropriate from 57mph to 64mph. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

10:57am Thu 10 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.
They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me.

If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it.

If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme.

Suggest something else?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.[/p][/quote]They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me. If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it. If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme. Suggest something else? Stereotyped
  • Score: 9

10:58am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
DS - are you actually reading the same article as everyone else? Here is the part you seem to have missed :
"As part of the force’s No Excuse campaign, a team of 70 Special Constables assisted by traffic officers and police took part in Operation Puzzle in East Dorset and North Dorset at the weekend. "
I doubt that there were anywhere near 70 traffic or police officers, maybe one or 2. Worth using one or 2 real police if you can boost the money with 70 volunteers.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: DS - are you actually reading the same article as everyone else? Here is the part you seem to have missed : "As part of the force’s No Excuse campaign, a team of 70 Special Constables assisted by traffic officers and police took part in Operation Puzzle in East Dorset and North Dorset at the weekend. "[/p][/quote]I doubt that there were anywhere near 70 traffic or police officers, maybe one or 2. Worth using one or 2 real police if you can boost the money with 70 volunteers. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -4

11:04am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Stereotyped wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.
They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me.

If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it.

If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme.

Suggest something else?
Only in Dorset can you continually offend and be caught every year and keep a clean licence but carrying on paying for Brian Austin's job. Alternatively the course allows you to be caught 6 times in three years for speeding and still drive, where without the course you would possibly quite rightly have been taken off the road. The criteria have been widened such that the vast majority of "offences", even the repeat ones, are offered the course, £110 a time, lovely.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.[/p][/quote]They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me. If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it. If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme. Suggest something else?[/p][/quote]Only in Dorset can you continually offend and be caught every year and keep a clean licence but carrying on paying for Brian Austin's job. Alternatively the course allows you to be caught 6 times in three years for speeding and still drive, where without the course you would possibly quite rightly have been taken off the road. The criteria have been widened such that the vast majority of "offences", even the repeat ones, are offered the course, £110 a time, lovely. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

11:05am Thu 10 Apr 14

Minty Fresh says...

I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources. Minty Fresh
  • Score: -12

11:06am Thu 10 Apr 14

uvox44 says...

DS why is it that you are so against people who are using mobile phones and speeding being caught? Also do you not think that this type of policing will also catch drunk drivers, uninsured etc? What exactly DO you want?
DS why is it that you are so against people who are using mobile phones and speeding being caught? Also do you not think that this type of policing will also catch drunk drivers, uninsured etc? What exactly DO you want? uvox44
  • Score: 10

11:10am Thu 10 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

Hessenford wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.
Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing).
Acpo guidelines state 50mph limit, 57 mph fixed penalty when education is not appropriate, speed awareness if appropriate from 57mph to 64mph.
It turns out that you're right. So it seems that Dorset Road Safe are out of line with general ACPO guidelines, because they say the threshold is 58mph on their website.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing).[/p][/quote]Acpo guidelines state 50mph limit, 57 mph fixed penalty when education is not appropriate, speed awareness if appropriate from 57mph to 64mph.[/p][/quote]It turns out that you're right. So it seems that Dorset Road Safe are out of line with general ACPO guidelines, because they say the threshold is 58mph on their website. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

11:14am Thu 10 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.
They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me.

If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it.

If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme.

Suggest something else?
Only in Dorset can you continually offend and be caught every year and keep a clean licence but carrying on paying for Brian Austin's job. Alternatively the course allows you to be caught 6 times in three years for speeding and still drive, where without the course you would possibly quite rightly have been taken off the road. The criteria have been widened such that the vast majority of "offences", even the repeat ones, are offered the course, £110 a time, lovely.
You can only do the speed awareness course if you have not been on it for the previous 3 years... If you have been caught and gone on the course in the past 3 years, you're not eligible and would be just given the points/summons to court.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.[/p][/quote]They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me. If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it. If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme. Suggest something else?[/p][/quote]Only in Dorset can you continually offend and be caught every year and keep a clean licence but carrying on paying for Brian Austin's job. Alternatively the course allows you to be caught 6 times in three years for speeding and still drive, where without the course you would possibly quite rightly have been taken off the road. The criteria have been widened such that the vast majority of "offences", even the repeat ones, are offered the course, £110 a time, lovely.[/p][/quote]You can only do the speed awareness course if you have not been on it for the previous 3 years... If you have been caught and gone on the course in the past 3 years, you're not eligible and would be just given the points/summons to court. Stereotyped
  • Score: 6

11:17am Thu 10 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
You sure about that?

It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]You sure about that? It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

11:19am Thu 10 Apr 14

Hessenford says...

The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.
Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing).
Acpo guidelines state 50mph limit, 57 mph fixed penalty when education is not appropriate, speed awareness if appropriate from 57mph to 64mph.
It turns out that you're right. So it seems that Dorset Road Safe are out of line with general ACPO guidelines, because they say the threshold is 58mph on their website.
Well there you go.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]Sorry to disappoint you but he was given the option of fine and points or driver awareness, fact.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it was in a different area or there were particularly bad weather conditions? Dorset Road Safe's own website states that the offence threshold for a 50mph zone is 58-64mph to be offered the choice of the driver awareness scheme (65-75 for a fixed penalty, 76+ for a court hearing).[/p][/quote]Acpo guidelines state 50mph limit, 57 mph fixed penalty when education is not appropriate, speed awareness if appropriate from 57mph to 64mph.[/p][/quote]It turns out that you're right. So it seems that Dorset Road Safe are out of line with general ACPO guidelines, because they say the threshold is 58mph on their website.[/p][/quote]Well there you go. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

11:19am Thu 10 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car
only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life!
And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !!
He was talking about a dual carriage way not an urban 30 mph zone so not exactly comparable.

A little less histrionics please.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]haha so 7mph over the limit is ok with you? will you be saying that when your loved one is on a life support machine after being hit by a speeding car only doing 37 mph instead of below 30 ???? as you say excessive speed is shocking and the effects can last a lifetime... if you still have a life! And no one drinks and drives with the blessing of the law if you have not noticed that offence carries a mandatory 12months driving ban !![/p][/quote]He was talking about a dual carriage way not an urban 30 mph zone so not exactly comparable. A little less histrionics please. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

11:20am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Stereotyped, no, it's one year (or possibly 6 months, not sure which):

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

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

Everywhere else in the UK it's 2 years. Also, Dorset charges by far the most for the cost. This is because so far they have refused to join the national scheme, they may be forced to soon but they won't make as much money which is why they have resisted.
Stereotyped, no, it's one year (or possibly 6 months, not sure which): "Named drivers are only permitted to attend one Driver Awareness course within a twelve month period. If a driver subsequently commits a further offence in a six month period after attending the course, then that offence will be dealt with via the fixed penalty process (fine and penalty points)." http://www.dorset.po lice.uk/default.aspx ?page=602 Everywhere else in the UK it's 2 years. Also, Dorset charges by far the most for the cost. This is because so far they have refused to join the national scheme, they may be forced to soon but they won't make as much money which is why they have resisted. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

11:35am Thu 10 Apr 14

hadvar says...

Quite simply, 'no excuse', 'surround the town' and 'speed awareness courses' have the stench of a money making scheme hanging around them. Other things other than motoring offences cause concern to the public, for example, anti-social behavior or burglary. We don't read about frequent high profile campaigns against these crimes. Why? Because motorists are easy to catch, and by definition, have some money. Easy targets, lazy policing.
Quite simply, 'no excuse', 'surround the town' and 'speed awareness courses' have the stench of a money making scheme hanging around them. Other things other than motoring offences cause concern to the public, for example, anti-social behavior or burglary. We don't read about frequent high profile campaigns against these crimes. Why? Because motorists are easy to catch, and by definition, have some money. Easy targets, lazy policing. hadvar
  • Score: -9

11:41am Thu 10 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
You sure about that?

It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons
See previous comment. It seems Dorset Road Safe are out of line with the national guidelines on this.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]You sure about that? It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons[/p][/quote]See previous comment. It seems Dorset Road Safe are out of line with the national guidelines on this. The Liberal
  • Score: -1

11:43am Thu 10 Apr 14

Mrlevelhead says...

I've got no problem with police policing, after all a speed camera doesn't identify unroadworthy cars, uninsured drivers, dangerous drivers, phone or seatbelt offences... BUT
“Speeding and driving while using a phone are the main factors in fatal and serious injury collisions" is WRONG!
Depending on whose statistics you use, 2-5% of accidents were soley caused by excess speed. So 95% of accidents are not. They are caused by agressive, careless or poor driving.
I've got no problem with police policing, after all a speed camera doesn't identify unroadworthy cars, uninsured drivers, dangerous drivers, phone or seatbelt offences... BUT “Speeding and driving while using a phone are the main factors in fatal and serious injury collisions" is WRONG! Depending on whose statistics you use, 2-5% of accidents were soley caused by excess speed. So 95% of accidents are not. They are caused by agressive, careless or poor driving. Mrlevelhead
  • Score: 5

11:44am Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
DS why is it that you are so against people who are using mobile phones and speeding being caught? Also do you not think that this type of policing will also catch drunk drivers, uninsured etc? What exactly DO you want?
I am not against people who are using mobile phones and speeding being caught. But I am far more against the police blatantly making money instead of intelligently doing the right things to reduce casualties, and I am against councillors, not road safety professionals, lowering speed limits far below even average measured speeds (20% in the case of the Dorset Way / A338), which inevitably "criminalises" normal, safe, responsible behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: DS why is it that you are so against people who are using mobile phones and speeding being caught? Also do you not think that this type of policing will also catch drunk drivers, uninsured etc? What exactly DO you want?[/p][/quote]I am not against people who are using mobile phones and speeding being caught. But I am far more against the police blatantly making money instead of intelligently doing the right things to reduce casualties, and I am against councillors, not road safety professionals, lowering speed limits far below even average measured speeds (20% in the case of the Dorset Way / A338), which inevitably "criminalises" normal, safe, responsible behaviour. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

11:57am Thu 10 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

The Liberal wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
You sure about that?

It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons
See previous comment. It seems Dorset Road Safe are out of line with the national guidelines on this.
Yes, I commented as I was reading.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]You sure about that? It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons[/p][/quote]See previous comment. It seems Dorset Road Safe are out of line with the national guidelines on this.[/p][/quote]Yes, I commented as I was reading. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

12:51pm Thu 10 Apr 14

MotorbikeSam says...

Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..
Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon.. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..
Oh dear. I don't want a "free speed for all". What we have is not preventing all the emotional trauma you are going on about "parents mourning offspring" etc etc. My campaign is not about "getting rid of speed cameras", it is about proper policing. Dorset Police are helping "criminal drivers getting off their punishment" by offering the course, they can now be caught 6 times speeding in 3 years and still be driving instead of 3 times. Speed cameras reduce speeds in 1% of road space, on the 99% they encourage it as the enforcement locations are known. I don't think you will find popular support for banning drivers at 7MPH above the limit as 90% of drivers would be banned and the country would cease to function.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..[/p][/quote]Oh dear. I don't want a "free speed for all". What we have is not preventing all the emotional trauma you are going on about "parents mourning offspring" etc etc. My campaign is not about "getting rid of speed cameras", it is about proper policing. Dorset Police are helping "criminal drivers getting off their punishment" by offering the course, they can now be caught 6 times speeding in 3 years and still be driving instead of 3 times. Speed cameras reduce speeds in 1% of road space, on the 99% they encourage it as the enforcement locations are known. I don't think you will find popular support for banning drivers at 7MPH above the limit as 90% of drivers would be banned and the country would cease to function. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

1:23pm Thu 10 Apr 14

runningboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.
They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me. If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it. If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme. Suggest something else?
Only in Dorset can you continually offend and be caught every year and keep a clean licence but carrying on paying for Brian Austin's job. Alternatively the course allows you to be caught 6 times in three years for speeding and still drive, where without the course you would possibly quite rightly have been taken off the road. The criteria have been widened such that the vast majority of "offences", even the repeat ones, are offered the course, £110 a time, lovely.
This article doesn't say how many vehicles were assessed, what % were offending. How many were driving without Insurance. There is also no comparison so we cannot tell if the situation is getting better or worse. This time and money could have been spent gathering more meaningful information

Considering the man power and time involved this seems like a low number and the story should be more positive. There are always going to be offenders regardless of education, road markings and anything else that people do to make it safer.

Maybe Dorsets answer to reduce road fatalities is to fill them with traffic jams.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]It seems like driving is being policed, and driving standards are shocking. Hopefully you can work out what the problem is then. Driving is not being policed properly. The policing of driving is optimised to make money, not to improve driving.[/p][/quote]They offer driver awareness courses, instead of just a fine... that is pretty good going if you ask me. If a driver chooses that as the 'easy' option, then that is the issue...not the way the police go about it. If they choose the course as a way of getting away without points, then continue to drive like an idiot afterwards, they will only end up being caught again eventually and given the fine instead...then rant and rave about it being a money making scheme. Suggest something else?[/p][/quote]Only in Dorset can you continually offend and be caught every year and keep a clean licence but carrying on paying for Brian Austin's job. Alternatively the course allows you to be caught 6 times in three years for speeding and still drive, where without the course you would possibly quite rightly have been taken off the road. The criteria have been widened such that the vast majority of "offences", even the repeat ones, are offered the course, £110 a time, lovely.[/p][/quote]This article doesn't say how many vehicles were assessed, what % were offending. How many were driving without Insurance. There is also no comparison so we cannot tell if the situation is getting better or worse. This time and money could have been spent gathering more meaningful information Considering the man power and time involved this seems like a low number and the story should be more positive. There are always going to be offenders regardless of education, road markings and anything else that people do to make it safer. Maybe Dorsets answer to reduce road fatalities is to fill them with traffic jams. runningboy
  • Score: 1

1:28pm Thu 10 Apr 14

ReservoirFrogs says...

Why all the fuss, you break the law, you get caught , you get punished - simple equation really. Don't want the fine , don't do the crime.
Why all the fuss, you break the law, you get caught , you get punished - simple equation really. Don't want the fine , don't do the crime. ReservoirFrogs
  • Score: 6

1:33pm Thu 10 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..
Ok before you get carried away on your soap box and start spouting "will nobody think of the children" crud and trying to portray anyone who disagrees as heartless monsters lets add a little thing called factual information to the equation.

The most up to date info from the Department for Transport and Office of Statistics is this................
.....:

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report
Contributory factors to reported road accidents:

Summary

This article describes the scope and limitations of the information on contributory factors collected as part of the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the sixth year of collection.

Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 40 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2010. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.

Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 60 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities.



So, yes if you hit something at 80 you are more likely to die than if you hit it at 30, pretty obvious. BUT speed is a factor nationally in only 5% of accidents. (Or to put it another way it was not in 95%)

I think it is fair to say that in this case the facts speak for themselves and perhaps you might think about that before being so judgemental, pious, accusatory and self bluddy righteous.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..[/p][/quote]Ok before you get carried away on your soap box and start spouting "will nobody think of the children" crud and trying to portray anyone who disagrees as heartless monsters lets add a little thing called factual information to the equation. The most up to date info from the Department for Transport and Office of Statistics is this................ .....: Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report Contributory factors to reported road accidents: Summary This article describes the scope and limitations of the information on contributory factors collected as part of the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the sixth year of collection.  Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 40 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2010. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.  Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 60 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.  Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities. So, yes if you hit something at 80 you are more likely to die than if you hit it at 30, pretty obvious. BUT speed is a factor nationally in only 5% of accidents. (Or to put it another way it was not in 95%) I think it is fair to say that in this case the facts speak for themselves and perhaps you might think about that before being so judgemental, pious, accusatory and self bluddy righteous. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

2:30pm Thu 10 Apr 14

wrifan says...

£100 fine, 3 penalty points......what a joke!! This is just not enough to deter these dangerous idiots!! On the continent you get a £100 fine for simply not validating your train tickets . People here know its against the law and the penalties should be much, much higher.
£100 fine, 3 penalty points......what a joke!! This is just not enough to deter these dangerous idiots!! On the continent you get a £100 fine for simply not validating your train tickets . People here know its against the law and the penalties should be much, much higher. wrifan
  • Score: -3

2:39pm Thu 10 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk! speedy231278
  • Score: 2

2:51pm Thu 10 Apr 14

mpo1967 says...

If as we keep being told catching speeding motorists is not a cash generator for the police why bother with the fines and speed awareness course fees.
Low earners cant afford them and wealthier motorists can so dont care.Lets face it most motorists are more concerned about receiving points on their licence.It seems there is no other reason for fines except swelling the coffers of the police.
If as we keep being told catching speeding motorists is not a cash generator for the police why bother with the fines and speed awareness course fees. Low earners cant afford them and wealthier motorists can so dont care.Lets face it most motorists are more concerned about receiving points on their licence.It seems there is no other reason for fines except swelling the coffers of the police. mpo1967
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

ReservoirFrogs wrote:
Why all the fuss, you break the law, you get caught , you get punished - simple equation really. Don't want the fine , don't do the crime.
Indeed. But that is "no excuse" for the police to be profiteering by focusing on normal, safe behaviour, also resulting in more tragedy on the road than if there were doing what they should be doing.
[quote][p][bold]ReservoirFrogs[/bold] wrote: Why all the fuss, you break the law, you get caught , you get punished - simple equation really. Don't want the fine , don't do the crime.[/p][/quote]Indeed. But that is "no excuse" for the police to be profiteering by focusing on normal, safe behaviour, also resulting in more tragedy on the road than if there were doing what they should be doing. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Thu 10 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law......... suzigirl
  • Score: -6

3:03pm Thu 10 Apr 14

smhinto says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
In answer to your first question - It's simply beacause it is easy money simply to stand there with a speed gun.
.
As someone has already stated most of these speeders would be people just doing 4 or 5 mph over the limit.
.
The the Polce were more proactive people who wee doing 4 or 5 mph over the limit could just receive a verbal warning or a 'watch your step' earache.
.
Bit no - it;s just a cash collection exercise.
.
An example of proactive policeing happened to me back in the 1990's. I was doing 78mph on the M180 up in Humberside. I was pulled over by a senior traffice cop. - He just stated watch what you are doing and think of everyone else's safety including your passengers. I accepted this and was sent on my way.
.
but these days it is just ticket, ticket ticket withpout even thinking about it.
.
Then one wonders the people have a low opinion of todays policing.
.
Anyway I saw this traffic cop in a pub two weeks later, he recognised me and I bought him a pint. Just for the record he has now retired and we are still friends to this day !!!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]In answer to your first question - It's simply beacause it is easy money simply to stand there with a speed gun. . As someone has already stated most of these speeders would be people just doing 4 or 5 mph over the limit. . The the Polce were more proactive people who wee doing 4 or 5 mph over the limit could just receive a verbal warning or a 'watch your step' earache. . Bit no - it;s just a cash collection exercise. . An example of proactive policeing happened to me back in the 1990's. I was doing 78mph on the M180 up in Humberside. I was pulled over by a senior traffice cop. - He just stated watch what you are doing and think of everyone else's safety including your passengers. I accepted this and was sent on my way. . but these days it is just ticket, ticket ticket withpout even thinking about it. . Then one wonders the people have a low opinion of todays policing. . Anyway I saw this traffic cop in a pub two weeks later, he recognised me and I bought him a pint. Just for the record he has now retired and we are still friends to this day !!! smhinto
  • Score: 3

3:03pm Thu 10 Apr 14

M0Z says...

I remember driving an old banger along the entire length of the Wessex Way dual carriageway at a perfectly legal 70mph at the time. Cars on the road today are so much safer though. My current one is 13 years old - but even this has 4 airbags, ABS, traction control, tensioned seat belts and generous crumple zones. It’s these technologies that have improved accident statistics, not the distraction of speed cameras. Logic says speed limits should have risen as a result of these advancements – but instead parts of the Wessex Way have dropped to a ridiculous 40mph just to raise money.

I absolutely hate the obsession with speed rather than focus on unsafe driving. It’s true that if everyone remained stationary there would be no road deaths – so in that sense speed is a factor. But the economy would collapse, they’d be insufficient tax receipts to fund the NHS and millions of consequential deaths would result. The anti-speed lobbyists would be happy though. Seriously, we need more joined up thinking and recognition that swift and effective transport is absolutely essential for everyone’s jobs, prosperity and healthcare. It’s currently going in the wrong direction. Travel at reasonable speed is becoming a nightmare.
I remember driving an old banger along the entire length of the Wessex Way dual carriageway at a perfectly legal 70mph at the time. Cars on the road today are so much safer though. My current one is 13 years old - but even this has 4 airbags, ABS, traction control, tensioned seat belts and generous crumple zones. It’s these technologies that have improved accident statistics, not the distraction of speed cameras. Logic says speed limits should have risen as a result of these advancements – but instead parts of the Wessex Way have dropped to a ridiculous 40mph just to raise money. I absolutely hate the obsession with speed rather than focus on unsafe driving. It’s true that if everyone remained stationary there would be no road deaths – so in that sense speed is a factor. But the economy would collapse, they’d be insufficient tax receipts to fund the NHS and millions of consequential deaths would result. The anti-speed lobbyists would be happy though. Seriously, we need more joined up thinking and recognition that swift and effective transport is absolutely essential for everyone’s jobs, prosperity and healthcare. It’s currently going in the wrong direction. Travel at reasonable speed is becoming a nightmare. M0Z
  • Score: 4

3:06pm Thu 10 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

suzigirl wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........
Or tossers on motorbikes.....
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........[/p][/quote]Or tossers on motorbikes..... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

3:38pm Thu 10 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
speedy231278 wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........
Or tossers on motorbikes.....
it takes one to know one!
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........[/p][/quote]Or tossers on motorbikes.....[/p][/quote]it takes one to know one! suzigirl
  • Score: -1

3:41pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic.
Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic. Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 3

3:43pm Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic.
Better still, remove the box junctions and traffic lights and make it into a normal roundabout - Oh, I remember that's what we had before the £6million "upgrade" !
[quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic.[/p][/quote]Better still, remove the box junctions and traffic lights and make it into a normal roundabout - Oh, I remember that's what we had before the £6million "upgrade" ! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Thu 10 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

suzigirl wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
speedy231278 wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........
Or tossers on motorbikes.....
it takes one to know one!
Oscar Wilde would be jealous of that one.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........[/p][/quote]Or tossers on motorbikes.....[/p][/quote]it takes one to know one![/p][/quote]Oscar Wilde would be jealous of that one. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

4:26pm Thu 10 Apr 14

suzigirl says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
speedy231278 wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........
Or tossers on motorbikes.....
it takes one to know one!
Oscar Wilde would be jealous of that one.
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much.........

You are forgiven my son for calling motorcyclists tossers - next time you are down at Poole Quay try saying it to their faces...............
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........[/p][/quote]Or tossers on motorbikes.....[/p][/quote]it takes one to know one![/p][/quote]Oscar Wilde would be jealous of that one.[/p][/quote]Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much......... You are forgiven my son for calling motorcyclists tossers - next time you are down at Poole Quay try saying it to their faces............... suzigirl
  • Score: 3

4:36pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Harveypoole says...

I wonder what time this exercise started as visibility was certainly poor early morning and there is no mention of any action being taken against any of the many drivers with no or partial lights on, oh this is never mentioned as being a cause of traffic collisions.
I wonder what time this exercise started as visibility was certainly poor early morning and there is no mention of any action being taken against any of the many drivers with no or partial lights on, oh this is never mentioned as being a cause of traffic collisions. Harveypoole
  • Score: 2

4:55pm Thu 10 Apr 14

PokesdownMark says...

Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Yes so actually go after drivers who are tailgating, failing to indicate, drifting between lanes and driving with defective eyesight. These are the things that cause accidents. Sure include drivers who are speeding too - but I bet the vast majority of the 102 drivers caught were only marginally over the limit on a section of road with an artificially low limit.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Yes so actually go after drivers who are tailgating, failing to indicate, drifting between lanes and driving with defective eyesight. These are the things that cause accidents. Sure include drivers who are speeding too - but I bet the vast majority of the 102 drivers caught were only marginally over the limit on a section of road with an artificially low limit. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 9

4:57pm Thu 10 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

suzigirl wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
speedy231278 wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........
Or tossers on motorbikes.....
it takes one to know one!
Oscar Wilde would be jealous of that one.
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much.........

You are forgiven my son for calling motorcyclists tossers - next time you are down at Poole Quay try saying it to their faces...............
Hey feel to slag off cyclists at every opportunity. Oh you do?
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........[/p][/quote]Or tossers on motorbikes.....[/p][/quote]it takes one to know one![/p][/quote]Oscar Wilde would be jealous of that one.[/p][/quote]Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much......... You are forgiven my son for calling motorcyclists tossers - next time you are down at Poole Quay try saying it to their faces...............[/p][/quote]Hey feel to slag off cyclists at every opportunity. Oh you do? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

5:03pm Thu 10 Apr 14

rayc says...

Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic.
Or even sort the phasing problems out.
[quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic.[/p][/quote]Or even sort the phasing problems out. rayc
  • Score: 1

5:37pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

After a few pints I always turn my phone off and drive very slightly slower than normal and observe things such as traffic signs/pedestrians much more intently than I normally would be bothered to. I think this is a fair trade off and has made me much more aware that I do not want to 'stand out' as an iffy driver and then draw attention form the old bill..
You see. We are not all irresponsible.
After a few pints I always turn my phone off and drive very slightly slower than normal and observe things such as traffic signs/pedestrians much more intently than I normally would be bothered to. I think this is a fair trade off and has made me much more aware that I do not want to 'stand out' as an iffy driver and then draw attention form the old bill.. You see. We are not all irresponsible. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 4

5:45pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Peroni says...

My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!! Peroni
  • Score: 2

5:50pm Thu 10 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

suzigirl wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk!
They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........
The police are not responsible for noisy neighbours, it's the local council, and they do crack down on cyclists, hammered a load in the Purewell area for riding on the pavements, last year unfortunately. They need to do it again. This from a cyclist who used to drive but now can't afford to run a car.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why do the Police always need these special operations to catch people? Surely if they actually policed the area properly, people would be far less inclined to break the law and the result of one of these operations would be far less people caught? It's a pity they don't do similar stuff for antisocial behaviour in some of the less reputable estates in the Bournemouth area, but then you can't hand out £110 fines for the noisy neighbour or kids throwing rocks at vehicles, so they won't bother. Hence Yellow Buses pulling out of areas after dusk![/p][/quote]They also don't bother about cyclists breaking the law.........[/p][/quote]The police are not responsible for noisy neighbours, it's the local council, and they do crack down on cyclists, hammered a load in the Purewell area for riding on the pavements, last year unfortunately. They need to do it again. This from a cyclist who used to drive but now can't afford to run a car. breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

5:55pm Thu 10 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Harveypoole wrote:
I wonder what time this exercise started as visibility was certainly poor early morning and there is no mention of any action being taken against any of the many drivers with no or partial lights on, oh this is never mentioned as being a cause of traffic collisions.
Or the complete bozos who put their fog lights on in rain.
[quote][p][bold]Harveypoole[/bold] wrote: I wonder what time this exercise started as visibility was certainly poor early morning and there is no mention of any action being taken against any of the many drivers with no or partial lights on, oh this is never mentioned as being a cause of traffic collisions.[/p][/quote]Or the complete bozos who put their fog lights on in rain. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

5:58pm Thu 10 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic.
Better still, remove the box junctions and traffic lights and make it into a normal roundabout - Oh, I remember that's what we had before the £6million "upgrade" !
Apart from the designers, does anybody think the changes were an improvement? Certainly I don't, unmitigated disaster is far more like it.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: Get them down to Canford Bottom roundabout and book everyone who stops in the box junctions blocking other traffic.[/p][/quote]Better still, remove the box junctions and traffic lights and make it into a normal roundabout - Oh, I remember that's what we had before the £6million "upgrade" ![/p][/quote]Apart from the designers, does anybody think the changes were an improvement? Certainly I don't, unmitigated disaster is far more like it. breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

6:04pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Artoo says...

This article is badly worded - there were 70 Specials on duty over the weekend, but only a small percentage of them were involved in the traffic operation. Two completely separate events that the Echo have managed to merge together!
This article is badly worded - there were 70 Specials on duty over the weekend, but only a small percentage of them were involved in the traffic operation. Two completely separate events that the Echo have managed to merge together! Artoo
  • Score: 3

6:05pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Peroni says...
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week.

------------
Yes she was. Stood there with Slippery Sue and
'Don't touch till you've paid' Betty.

I couldn't stop anyway as I was on my way to the chip shop. So hungry was I.

Please pass on my regards.
Peroni says... My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week. ------------ Yes she was. Stood there with Slippery Sue and 'Don't touch till you've paid' Betty. I couldn't stop anyway as I was on my way to the chip shop. So hungry was I. Please pass on my regards. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Thu 10 Apr 14

MotorbikeSam says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..
Ok before you get carried away on your soap box and start spouting "will nobody think of the children" crud and trying to portray anyone who disagrees as heartless monsters lets add a little thing called factual information to the equation.

The most up to date info from the Department for Transport and Office of Statistics is this................

.....:

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report
Contributory factors to reported road accidents:

Summary

This article describes the scope and limitations of the information on contributory factors collected as part of the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the sixth year of collection.

Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 40 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2010. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.

Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 60 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities.



So, yes if you hit something at 80 you are more likely to die than if you hit it at 30, pretty obvious. BUT speed is a factor nationally in only 5% of accidents. (Or to put it another way it was not in 95%)

I think it is fair to say that in this case the facts speak for themselves and perhaps you might think about that before being so judgemental, pious, accusatory and self bluddy righteous.
i have never suggested that speed cause accidents but speed kills.. simples ... the slower you go the less injured you are when the accident happens .. your statistics try very hard to make a case for car to drive as fast as they like ( only 5 % of accidents are caused by excess speed) the simple fact is if the national speed limit was 30 mph many would be not die !!
at 50 a few more would die at 70 .... and so on... so speed limits are very important and when flouted should be treated as bad as drink driving..
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..[/p][/quote]Ok before you get carried away on your soap box and start spouting "will nobody think of the children" crud and trying to portray anyone who disagrees as heartless monsters lets add a little thing called factual information to the equation. The most up to date info from the Department for Transport and Office of Statistics is this................ .....: Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report Contributory factors to reported road accidents: Summary This article describes the scope and limitations of the information on contributory factors collected as part of the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the sixth year of collection.  Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 40 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2010. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.  Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 60 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.  Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities. So, yes if you hit something at 80 you are more likely to die than if you hit it at 30, pretty obvious. BUT speed is a factor nationally in only 5% of accidents. (Or to put it another way it was not in 95%) I think it is fair to say that in this case the facts speak for themselves and perhaps you might think about that before being so judgemental, pious, accusatory and self bluddy righteous.[/p][/quote]i have never suggested that speed cause accidents but speed kills.. simples ... the slower you go the less injured you are when the accident happens .. your statistics try very hard to make a case for car to drive as fast as they like ( only 5 % of accidents are caused by excess speed) the simple fact is if the national speed limit was 30 mph many would be not die !! at 50 a few more would die at 70 .... and so on... so speed limits are very important and when flouted should be treated as bad as drink driving.. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: -2

6:51pm Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

"the slower you go the less injured you are when the accident happens" Great. Lets see what speed limits we should have using this logic. If you can't work it out, I'll help you.
"the slower you go the less injured you are when the accident happens" Great. Lets see what speed limits we should have using this logic. If you can't work it out, I'll help you. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Thu 10 Apr 14

roguetrader666 says...

The message is clear. Don't watch the road and traffic in front of you. Spend your time looking anywhere but there for these holier than thou jobsworths.
The message is clear. Don't watch the road and traffic in front of you. Spend your time looking anywhere but there for these holier than thou jobsworths. roguetrader666
  • Score: -1

7:07pm Thu 10 Apr 14

smhinto says...

Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one. smhinto
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Thu 10 Apr 14

MotorbikeSam says...

That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads..
Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways..
That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads.. Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways.. MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads..
Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways..
How about encouraging attentive, respectful, observant, polite driving, and not hitting the child at all?
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads.. Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways..[/p][/quote]How about encouraging attentive, respectful, observant, polite driving, and not hitting the child at all? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Wageslave says...

Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
A law to only allow mobiles to be carried in the boot would be good. What is so desperate you have to check your phone while driving .If you can't reach it you will not miss it. I do this and do not get distracted. Young women are the worst offenders so it seems
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]A law to only allow mobiles to be carried in the boot would be good. What is so desperate you have to check your phone while driving .If you can't reach it you will not miss it. I do this and do not get distracted. Young women are the worst offenders so it seems Wageslave
  • Score: 3

7:54pm Thu 10 Apr 14

jill M says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
The police don t get any bonus, and their pay is frozen. Think about them out on the streets tonight keeping you safe while you are tucked up nice and warm in your bed. Hopefully none of your family will ever be killed or maimed by a speeding driver, think about it before you make comments like the above.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]The police don t get any bonus, and their pay is frozen. Think about them out on the streets tonight keeping you safe while you are tucked up nice and warm in your bed. Hopefully none of your family will ever be killed or maimed by a speeding driver, think about it before you make comments like the above. jill M
  • Score: 7

8:19pm Thu 10 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..
Ok before you get carried away on your soap box and start spouting "will nobody think of the children" crud and trying to portray anyone who disagrees as heartless monsters lets add a little thing called factual information to the equation.

The most up to date info from the Department for Transport and Office of Statistics is this................


.....:

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report
Contributory factors to reported road accidents:

Summary

This article describes the scope and limitations of the information on contributory factors collected as part of the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the sixth year of collection.

Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 40 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2010. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.

Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 60 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities.



So, yes if you hit something at 80 you are more likely to die than if you hit it at 30, pretty obvious. BUT speed is a factor nationally in only 5% of accidents. (Or to put it another way it was not in 95%)

I think it is fair to say that in this case the facts speak for themselves and perhaps you might think about that before being so judgemental, pious, accusatory and self bluddy righteous.
i have never suggested that speed cause accidents but speed kills.. simples ... the slower you go the less injured you are when the accident happens .. your statistics try very hard to make a case for car to drive as fast as they like ( only 5 % of accidents are caused by excess speed) the simple fact is if the national speed limit was 30 mph many would be not die !!
at 50 a few more would die at 70 .... and so on... so speed limits are very important and when flouted should be treated as bad as drink driving..
If the national speed limit was 30mph a lot of journeys would be faster. Research "queueing theory" if you want to know more.
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed want a free speed for all, he thinks everyone will drive past a school at 20 mph on school day and 50 at other times and 20 mph throu high streets and 80 where it is safe to do so..... well me Speedy open the door to the real world when blood is spilt and bodies with no sign of life are dragged from crashed cars, where parents mourn their offspring young men perish, 400 of them year and why.... because they drive too fast. Your Campaign to get rid of speed cameras and secondly to help criminal driver get off their punishment is miss guided and very very wrong. Speed cameras reduce the speed of traffic through fear of a ticket we should have them on every road, and cars should be electronicly restricted to a safer speed, all quite possible, and to those of you who moan that they have had a ticket because they went 7 mph over the limit should be banned because if you incapable of controling your speed you are and incompetent driver or you eyesight is not up to scratch. either way you should be driving a lethal weapon..[/p][/quote]Ok before you get carried away on your soap box and start spouting "will nobody think of the children" crud and trying to portray anyone who disagrees as heartless monsters lets add a little thing called factual information to the equation. The most up to date info from the Department for Transport and Office of Statistics is this................ .....: Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report Contributory factors to reported road accidents: Summary This article describes the scope and limitations of the information on contributory factors collected as part of the national road accident reporting system, and presents results from the sixth year of collection.  Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 40 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2010. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.  Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 60 per cent of accidents in which a pedestrian was injured or killed, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.  Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities. So, yes if you hit something at 80 you are more likely to die than if you hit it at 30, pretty obvious. BUT speed is a factor nationally in only 5% of accidents. (Or to put it another way it was not in 95%) I think it is fair to say that in this case the facts speak for themselves and perhaps you might think about that before being so judgemental, pious, accusatory and self bluddy righteous.[/p][/quote]i have never suggested that speed cause accidents but speed kills.. simples ... the slower you go the less injured you are when the accident happens .. your statistics try very hard to make a case for car to drive as fast as they like ( only 5 % of accidents are caused by excess speed) the simple fact is if the national speed limit was 30 mph many would be not die !! at 50 a few more would die at 70 .... and so on... so speed limits are very important and when flouted should be treated as bad as drink driving..[/p][/quote]If the national speed limit was 30mph a lot of journeys would be faster. Research "queueing theory" if you want to know more. breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

8:22pm Thu 10 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads..
Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways..
How about encouraging attentive, respectful, observant, polite driving, and not hitting the child at all?
You can encourage it, but it won't happen as a substantial minority of drivers are sitting on their brains.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads.. Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways..[/p][/quote]How about encouraging attentive, respectful, observant, polite driving, and not hitting the child at all?[/p][/quote]You can encourage it, but it won't happen as a substantial minority of drivers are sitting on their brains. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

8:37pm Thu 10 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here.

Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people.

Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this. FNS-man
  • Score: -6

9:00pm Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
MotorbikeSam wrote:
That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads..
Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways..
How about encouraging attentive, respectful, observant, polite driving, and not hitting the child at all?
You can encourage it, but it won't happen as a substantial minority of drivers are sitting on their brains.
Indeed, but limits and speed enforcements won't solve that problem either. Proper traffic cops might though.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: That is the Logic the powers that be use .. I am sure you have seen the ads.. Hit a child at 40 mph 80% die hit a child at 30 mph 80% live ... some would say the child did not show caution so its their fault... I say show all traffic down to 30 mph on any road where people can walk ..ie .. all roads except motorways and clearway dual carriageways..[/p][/quote]How about encouraging attentive, respectful, observant, polite driving, and not hitting the child at all?[/p][/quote]You can encourage it, but it won't happen as a substantial minority of drivers are sitting on their brains.[/p][/quote]Indeed, but limits and speed enforcements won't solve that problem either. Proper traffic cops might though. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Thu 10 Apr 14

davecook says...

Would it not be easier to try and drive within the speed limit, rather than spend precious time writing here about how poor the police are for daring to trap people for speeding? Remember, whilst people are moaning about being caught for driving slightly over the limit, they are either driving without noticing things like police speed traps, or they are driving way over the limit and only drop their speed from something way over the limit to something slightly over the limit (and then moan for getting done for being slightly over the limit).........
Would it not be easier to try and drive within the speed limit, rather than spend precious time writing here about how poor the police are for daring to trap people for speeding? Remember, whilst people are moaning about being caught for driving slightly over the limit, they are either driving without noticing things like police speed traps, or they are driving way over the limit and only drop their speed from something way over the limit to something slightly over the limit (and then moan for getting done for being slightly over the limit)......... davecook
  • Score: 1

9:08pm Thu 10 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here.

Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people.

Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.
To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.[/p][/quote]To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

9:24pm Thu 10 Apr 14

spooki says...

So where are these 70 police staff the rest of the time? When drivers are using their knees to steer or taking their hands off the wheel while they light a ciggie/answer the phone/gesticulate to argue with their passenger?
You put 70 special constables or whatever on ANY main road, you're going to catch people breaking the law! I've been victim to many a bad driver but luck would have it, there's never anyone from the police to see it!
So where are these 70 police staff the rest of the time? When drivers are using their knees to steer or taking their hands off the wheel while they light a ciggie/answer the phone/gesticulate to argue with their passenger? You put 70 special constables or whatever on ANY main road, you're going to catch people breaking the law! I've been victim to many a bad driver but luck would have it, there's never anyone from the police to see it! spooki
  • Score: 1

9:33pm Thu 10 Apr 14

spooki says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Yes so actually go after drivers who are tailgating, failing to indicate, drifting between lanes and driving with defective eyesight. These are the things that cause accidents. Sure include drivers who are speeding too - but I bet the vast majority of the 102 drivers caught were only marginally over the limit on a section of road with an artificially low limit.
Ever driven from Iford, past Tesco, Bmth Hospital and towards Castlepoint? Perhaps the police should try doing that occasionally. They'd catch at least one of each of those you've mentioned!
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Yes so actually go after drivers who are tailgating, failing to indicate, drifting between lanes and driving with defective eyesight. These are the things that cause accidents. Sure include drivers who are speeding too - but I bet the vast majority of the 102 drivers caught were only marginally over the limit on a section of road with an artificially low limit.[/p][/quote]Ever driven from Iford, past Tesco, Bmth Hospital and towards Castlepoint? Perhaps the police should try doing that occasionally. They'd catch at least one of each of those you've mentioned! spooki
  • Score: 3

9:47pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Artoo says...

spooki wrote:
So where are these 70 police staff the rest of the time? When drivers are using their knees to steer or taking their hands off the wheel while they light a ciggie/answer the phone/gesticulate to argue with their passenger?
You put 70 special constables or whatever on ANY main road, you're going to catch people breaking the law! I've been victim to many a bad driver but luck would have it, there's never anyone from the police to see it!
There weren't 70 Specials on any road or traffic operation last weekend. The Echo have got their wires crossed and mixed up two different events that both took place over the same time period.
[quote][p][bold]spooki[/bold] wrote: So where are these 70 police staff the rest of the time? When drivers are using their knees to steer or taking their hands off the wheel while they light a ciggie/answer the phone/gesticulate to argue with their passenger? You put 70 special constables or whatever on ANY main road, you're going to catch people breaking the law! I've been victim to many a bad driver but luck would have it, there's never anyone from the police to see it![/p][/quote]There weren't 70 Specials on any road or traffic operation last weekend. The Echo have got their wires crossed and mixed up two different events that both took place over the same time period. Artoo
  • Score: 4

11:00pm Thu 10 Apr 14

sprintervanman says...

smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
[quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless. sprintervanman
  • Score: 1

11:38pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Artoo says...

sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
Not entirely accurate... It's against the law to drive* a motor vehicle on a road whilst using a handheld mobile phone. If the engine is switched off there's no offence, regardless of whether the key is in the ignition or not, or how warm the engine may be.


* This also includes causing or permitting another person to drive whilst using a handheld mobile phone, or supervising a learner driver whilst the person supervising is using a handheld mobile phone.
[quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]Not entirely accurate... It's against the law to drive* a motor vehicle on a road whilst using a handheld mobile phone. If the engine is switched off there's no offence, regardless of whether the key is in the ignition or not, or how warm the engine may be. * This also includes causing or permitting another person to drive whilst using a handheld mobile phone, or supervising a learner driver whilst the person supervising is using a handheld mobile phone. Artoo
  • Score: 1

11:39pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Lord Spring says...

Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
How do she know its was a mobile and not a two way radio.
which has a different classification.
[quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]How do she know its was a mobile and not a two way radio. which has a different classification. Lord Spring
  • Score: 5

4:23am Fri 11 Apr 14

Old Boscombe Lad says...

Too bad they didn't catch all the others out there too.
Too bad they didn't catch all the others out there too. Old Boscombe Lad
  • Score: 0

6:01am Fri 11 Apr 14

K5054 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking.
What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.
A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.
You sure about that?

It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons
76 in a 50 is a just a summons...I think they should take the car away and them out of circulation. 76 means they have no choice but to overtake all other cars. No wonder if we do get involved in a head on with their accidents we often don`t live to tell the tale.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Excessive speed is shocking I agree but i would like to see exactly how many drivers were caught only a few mph over the limit, a mate of mine was caught doing 57 in a 50 limit on a dual carriageway which used to have a speed limit of 60mph, hardly shocking. What is shocking is the hundreds of drivers who go to the pub and then drive home with the full blessing of the law, that shocks me more than someone completely sober who drives 7mph over the limit on a dual carriageway.[/p][/quote]A highly unlikely anecdote, since 57 would still be within the ACPO range and therefore not result in a fine.[/p][/quote]You sure about that? It is 57 = fixed penalty 76 = summons[/p][/quote]76 in a 50 is a just a summons...I think they should take the car away and them out of circulation. 76 means they have no choice but to overtake all other cars. No wonder if we do get involved in a head on with their accidents we often don`t live to tell the tale. K5054
  • Score: -1

7:03am Fri 11 Apr 14

sooooz says...

I really dont get the majority of comments on this article.

What is so difficult about the concept "don't break the law (and thereby endanger others or yourself) and you won't get caught". Just grow up, stop whingeing and take responsibility for YOUR actions!
I really dont get the majority of comments on this article. What is so difficult about the concept "don't break the law (and thereby endanger others or yourself) and you won't get caught". Just grow up, stop whingeing and take responsibility for YOUR actions! sooooz
  • Score: -1

7:14am Fri 11 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here.

Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people.

Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.
To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.
That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.[/p][/quote]To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.[/p][/quote]That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument. FNS-man
  • Score: -3

8:31am Fri 11 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here.

Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people.

Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.
To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.
That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument.
No, none of it is rubbish:

"There are almost 12,000 preventable deaths in hospital every year due to problems with care"

https://www.lshtm.ac
.uk/newsevents/news/
2012/study_reveals_t
rue_picture_of_preve
ntable_deaths_in_hos
pitals_.html

"For reported road accidents in the year ending March 2013 1,680 people were killed"

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/publicatio
ns/reported-road-cas
ualties-great-britai
n-provisional-estima
tes-q1-2013

Not 10 times exactly I agree but in that ballpark.

And when you consider that speeding is only one and often not the primary factor in only 15% of road deaths, and that speeding enforcement does not even come close to eliminating speeding, if reducing deaths is your interest, of all the improvements that could be made here is an obvious one: send all the jobsworths, busy bodies and crooks in the speed industry into hospitals with buckets, mops, and a bottle of disinfectant instead.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.[/p][/quote]To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.[/p][/quote]That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument.[/p][/quote]No, none of it is rubbish: "There are almost 12,000 preventable deaths in hospital every year due to problems with care" https://www.lshtm.ac .uk/newsevents/news/ 2012/study_reveals_t rue_picture_of_preve ntable_deaths_in_hos pitals_.html "For reported road accidents in the year ending March 2013 1,680 people were killed" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-provisional-estima tes-q1-2013 Not 10 times exactly I agree but in that ballpark. And when you consider that speeding is only one and often not the primary factor in only 15% of road deaths, and that speeding enforcement does not even come close to eliminating speeding, if reducing deaths is your interest, of all the improvements that could be made here is an obvious one: send all the jobsworths, busy bodies and crooks in the speed industry into hospitals with buckets, mops, and a bottle of disinfectant instead. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

8:37am Fri 11 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

sooooz wrote:
I really dont get the majority of comments on this article.

What is so difficult about the concept "don't break the law (and thereby endanger others or yourself) and you won't get caught". Just grow up, stop whingeing and take responsibility for YOUR actions!
Nothing is difficult about that concept. Here's another concept that is not difficult: If you want to reduce dangerous driving, you have to target the most dangerous drivers, not the least dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]sooooz[/bold] wrote: I really dont get the majority of comments on this article. What is so difficult about the concept "don't break the law (and thereby endanger others or yourself) and you won't get caught". Just grow up, stop whingeing and take responsibility for YOUR actions![/p][/quote]Nothing is difficult about that concept. Here's another concept that is not difficult: If you want to reduce dangerous driving, you have to target the most dangerous drivers, not the least dangerous. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

8:58am Fri 11 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking.

For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are.

Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?
Yes so actually go after drivers who are tailgating, failing to indicate, drifting between lanes and driving with defective eyesight. These are the things that cause accidents. Sure include drivers who are speeding too - but I bet the vast majority of the 102 drivers caught were only marginally over the limit on a section of road with an artificially low limit.
So, you're saying that going after speeders is a bad thing? If they are only a 'margin' over the limit, it's okay? A limit is a limit, break it and you are breaking the law (with speedo inaccuracy taken into account).

I don't disagree though, tailgaiters etc should also be done. But, I can't see how they would go about that with stationary posts on a job like this. When out and about patrolling, yes, but on roadside traps, bit harder.

I used to drive from Poole to Christchurch very often and the number of cars who would speed past me/tail gate me and overtake (badly)...only for me to see them a couple of cars ahead when I get to Christchurch... Wow, that was really worth all that effort driving like a tool wasn't it. It never works in your favour, abide by the limits and you will get there in just as much time and be much safer and relaxed.
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: Doesn't surprise me at all, driving standards are shocking. For all the people commenting saying this is a waste of money...I bet you're the same ones who also comment on the 'accident' (no such thing) articles moaning about the high number of crashes that there are. Well, which is it? Not police it and let people do as they please and crash all the time? Or police it and penalise those who think they can abuse the laws?[/p][/quote]Yes so actually go after drivers who are tailgating, failing to indicate, drifting between lanes and driving with defective eyesight. These are the things that cause accidents. Sure include drivers who are speeding too - but I bet the vast majority of the 102 drivers caught were only marginally over the limit on a section of road with an artificially low limit.[/p][/quote]So, you're saying that going after speeders is a bad thing? If they are only a 'margin' over the limit, it's okay? A limit is a limit, break it and you are breaking the law (with speedo inaccuracy taken into account). I don't disagree though, tailgaiters etc should also be done. But, I can't see how they would go about that with stationary posts on a job like this. When out and about patrolling, yes, but on roadside traps, bit harder. I used to drive from Poole to Christchurch very often and the number of cars who would speed past me/tail gate me and overtake (badly)...only for me to see them a couple of cars ahead when I get to Christchurch... Wow, that was really worth all that effort driving like a tool wasn't it. It never works in your favour, abide by the limits and you will get there in just as much time and be much safer and relaxed. Stereotyped
  • Score: 0

9:02am Fri 11 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
[quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

9:14am Fri 11 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures.

It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not.
Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures. It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:15am Fri 11 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar. Stereotyped
  • Score: 3

9:18am Fri 11 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures.

It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not.
I see your point and kind of agree... I know speed is not the only factor in collisions, it is almost always only a contributing factor. However, if speed is reduced, the outcome of a collision is far less brutal.

Trouble is, speeding in itself is not that bad...but the sheer amount of poor drivers out there, who cannot handle a car at low speeds, let alone above the limits, is the reason why it is policed so much.

If drivers were better, speed wouldn't be a problem at all. But as it stands, there are just far too many incompetent drivers on the roads.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures. It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not.[/p][/quote]I see your point and kind of agree... I know speed is not the only factor in collisions, it is almost always only a contributing factor. However, if speed is reduced, the outcome of a collision is far less brutal. Trouble is, speeding in itself is not that bad...but the sheer amount of poor drivers out there, who cannot handle a car at low speeds, let alone above the limits, is the reason why it is policed so much. If drivers were better, speed wouldn't be a problem at all. But as it stands, there are just far too many incompetent drivers on the roads. Stereotyped
  • Score: 5

9:19am Fri 11 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
sooooz wrote:
I really dont get the majority of comments on this article.

What is so difficult about the concept "don't break the law (and thereby endanger others or yourself) and you won't get caught". Just grow up, stop whingeing and take responsibility for YOUR actions!
Nothing is difficult about that concept. Here's another concept that is not difficult: If you want to reduce dangerous driving, you have to target the most dangerous drivers, not the least dangerous.
Irrespective of what people's views on speeding this is the most valid and sensible argument around the whole subject.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sooooz[/bold] wrote: I really dont get the majority of comments on this article. What is so difficult about the concept "don't break the law (and thereby endanger others or yourself) and you won't get caught". Just grow up, stop whingeing and take responsibility for YOUR actions![/p][/quote]Nothing is difficult about that concept. Here's another concept that is not difficult: If you want to reduce dangerous driving, you have to target the most dangerous drivers, not the least dangerous.[/p][/quote]Irrespective of what people's views on speeding this is the most valid and sensible argument around the whole subject. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

9:23am Fri 11 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
Another one.

'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.'

No, no you can't.

You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones.

.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar.[/p][/quote]Another one. 'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.' No, no you can't. You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones. . scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

11:15am Fri 11 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures.

It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not.
Yes, there may be a few places where the limit has been set too low. But I reckon that the majority are set at about the right level.
 
I would surmise that the emphasis on catching speeders is because it's clear cut whether someone's broken the limit and is therefore easier than trying to prove that someone has driven recklessly, which is subjective and requires more police manpower. Maybe that emphasis is wrong, but unless police funding is increased to fund more traffic patrols, I can't see much that can be done about it.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures. It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not.[/p][/quote]Yes, there may be a few places where the limit has been set too low. But I reckon that the majority are set at about the right level.   I would surmise that the emphasis on catching speeders is because it's clear cut whether someone's broken the limit and is therefore easier than trying to prove that someone has driven recklessly, which is subjective and requires more police manpower. Maybe that emphasis is wrong, but unless police funding is increased to fund more traffic patrols, I can't see much that can be done about it. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

11:22am Fri 11 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
Another one.

'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.'

No, no you can't.

You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones.

.
Yes you can... research it.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar.[/p][/quote]Another one. 'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.' No, no you can't. You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones. .[/p][/quote]Yes you can... research it. Stereotyped
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Fri 11 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.
To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.
That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument.
No, none of it is rubbish: "There are almost 12,000 preventable deaths in hospital every year due to problems with care" https://www.lshtm.ac .uk/newsevents/news/ 2012/study_reveals_t rue_picture_of_preve ntable_deaths_in_hos pitals_.html "For reported road accidents in the year ending March 2013 1,680 people were killed" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-provisional-estima tes-q1-2013 Not 10 times exactly I agree but in that ballpark. And when you consider that speeding is only one and often not the primary factor in only 15% of road deaths, and that speeding enforcement does not even come close to eliminating speeding, if reducing deaths is your interest, of all the improvements that could be made here is an obvious one: send all the jobsworths, busy bodies and crooks in the speed industry into hospitals with buckets, mops, and a bottle of disinfectant instead.
But the people you are talking about are mainly about to die anyway:

"most preventable deaths occurred in those who were severely ill with multiple conditions and would have had less than a year to live"

People killed on the roads are generally young. So you are talking about two completely different things.

You are also conflating the cause of accidents with the cause of deaths. Whether you are doing this willfully or because you are stupid is unclear. Either way, you are wrong.
[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]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.[/p][/quote]To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.[/p][/quote]That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument.[/p][/quote]No, none of it is rubbish: "There are almost 12,000 preventable deaths in hospital every year due to problems with care" https://www.lshtm.ac .uk/newsevents/news/ 2012/study_reveals_t rue_picture_of_preve ntable_deaths_in_hos pitals_.html "For reported road accidents in the year ending March 2013 1,680 people were killed" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-provisional-estima tes-q1-2013 Not 10 times exactly I agree but in that ballpark. And when you consider that speeding is only one and often not the primary factor in only 15% of road deaths, and that speeding enforcement does not even come close to eliminating speeding, if reducing deaths is your interest, of all the improvements that could be made here is an obvious one: send all the jobsworths, busy bodies and crooks in the speed industry into hospitals with buckets, mops, and a bottle of disinfectant instead.[/p][/quote]But the people you are talking about are mainly about to die anyway: "most preventable deaths occurred in those who were severely ill with multiple conditions and would have had less than a year to live" People killed on the roads are generally young. So you are talking about two completely different things. You are also conflating the cause of accidents with the cause of deaths. Whether you are doing this willfully or because you are stupid is unclear. Either way, you are wrong. FNS-man
  • Score: -3

12:33pm Fri 11 Apr 14

sundaydriver says...

Corr! all that money collected in fines could be used to back fill the financial gap left from paying that mortgage in Amazingstoke :)
Corr! all that money collected in fines could be used to back fill the financial gap left from paying that mortgage in Amazingstoke :) sundaydriver
  • Score: 2

12:56pm Fri 11 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures.

It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not.
Yes, there may be a few places where the limit has been set too low. But I reckon that the majority are set at about the right level.
 
I would surmise that the emphasis on catching speeders is because it's clear cut whether someone's broken the limit and is therefore easier than trying to prove that someone has driven recklessly, which is subjective and requires more police manpower. Maybe that emphasis is wrong, but unless police funding is increased to fund more traffic patrols, I can't see much that can be done about it.
The problem is that there is no trust, and all the indications are that the police are more interested in financially attractive operations, not those effective for casualty reduction. Consider also that:

1. There are no funds for Brian Austin's (and the other Dorset Road Unsafe managers) positions, other than the profits from the course, from operations they themselves select. How perverse is that? Come on now, would they really choose to put an expensive traffic cop on the road doing the more difficult and less profitable but most effective work, or a retired cop or "volunteer" in a van who can bring in £110 every few seconds, EVEN IF they could afford a proper traffic cop? They are thinking about their jobs, not saving life!!

2. These financial motivations are blatant. Why do they lie, telling us that there are no financial motivations?

3. I have been trying to find out where the money goes for 3 years and Dorset Police have resisted completely, I did get some top level costs eventually which are clearly massively inflated or indicative of massive waste, such as an equivalent of 10 staff on £52K to deliver the simple course to 40 people, 3 times the going rate (over £150K) for the course premises, etc. I still await the detail but Dorset Police are still refusing. Underhill agreed with me when he started that they have not been adequately transparent but has still failed to get the detail!!

There is plenty more but while these kinds of issues are open, quite frankly Dorset Police are being secretive and dishonest about their finances, appear to be abusing them, and have such a poor grasp on the situation that they wouldn’t even know if they could afford a few more traffic cops or could use the money more efficiently.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Stereotyped, I don't think anyone (including myself) has a particular problem with the principle of speed limits and enforcements. But no-one can deny that the attention that speeding attracts is out of all proportion with its contribution to problems on the roads (only a factor in only 7% of KSI accidents) and that for example, little attention is given to the fact that 10 times as many KSI accidents have simple driver error (failing to look, etc) as a factor. Meanwhile, multi £million pound industries have grown in every county due to the ease with which money can be extracted from "speeding" drivers and speed limits have been reduced on some of the busiest roads even as much as 20% below even average speeds with NO safety justification, by councillors seeking popularity, not by professional road safety engineers. And in Dorset, the police have fought for 3 years to avoid detailing where the money from courses goes but has almost certainly lied in its top level figures. It might be that speed enforcements could be a good thing, but all the indications are that at the moment, they are most certainly not.[/p][/quote]Yes, there may be a few places where the limit has been set too low. But I reckon that the majority are set at about the right level.   I would surmise that the emphasis on catching speeders is because it's clear cut whether someone's broken the limit and is therefore easier than trying to prove that someone has driven recklessly, which is subjective and requires more police manpower. Maybe that emphasis is wrong, but unless police funding is increased to fund more traffic patrols, I can't see much that can be done about it.[/p][/quote]The problem is that there is no trust, and all the indications are that the police are more interested in financially attractive operations, not those effective for casualty reduction. Consider also that: 1. There are no funds for Brian Austin's (and the other Dorset Road Unsafe managers) positions, other than the profits from the course, from operations they themselves select. How perverse is that? Come on now, would they really choose to put an expensive traffic cop on the road doing the more difficult and less profitable but most effective work, or a retired cop or "volunteer" in a van who can bring in £110 every few seconds, EVEN IF they could afford a proper traffic cop? They are thinking about their jobs, not saving life!! 2. These financial motivations are blatant. Why do they lie, telling us that there are no financial motivations? 3. I have been trying to find out where the money goes for 3 years and Dorset Police have resisted completely, I did get some top level costs eventually which are clearly massively inflated or indicative of massive waste, such as an equivalent of 10 staff on £52K to deliver the simple course to 40 people, 3 times the going rate (over £150K) for the course premises, etc. I still await the detail but Dorset Police are still refusing. Underhill agreed with me when he started that they have not been adequately transparent but has still failed to get the detail!! There is plenty more but while these kinds of issues are open, quite frankly Dorset Police are being secretive and dishonest about their finances, appear to be abusing them, and have such a poor grasp on the situation that they wouldn’t even know if they could afford a few more traffic cops or could use the money more efficiently. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

1:02pm Fri 11 Apr 14

live-and-let-live says...

don't bother reporting a crime. the police are far too busy chasing motorists.
don't bother reporting a crime. the police are far too busy chasing motorists. live-and-let-live
  • Score: -1

1:03pm Fri 11 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.
To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.
That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument.
No, none of it is rubbish: "There are almost 12,000 preventable deaths in hospital every year due to problems with care" https://www.lshtm.ac .uk/newsevents/news/ 2012/study_reveals_t rue_picture_of_preve ntable_deaths_in_hos pitals_.html "For reported road accidents in the year ending March 2013 1,680 people were killed" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-provisional-estima tes-q1-2013 Not 10 times exactly I agree but in that ballpark. And when you consider that speeding is only one and often not the primary factor in only 15% of road deaths, and that speeding enforcement does not even come close to eliminating speeding, if reducing deaths is your interest, of all the improvements that could be made here is an obvious one: send all the jobsworths, busy bodies and crooks in the speed industry into hospitals with buckets, mops, and a bottle of disinfectant instead.
But the people you are talking about are mainly about to die anyway:

"most preventable deaths occurred in those who were severely ill with multiple conditions and would have had less than a year to live"

People killed on the roads are generally young. So you are talking about two completely different things.

You are also conflating the cause of accidents with the cause of deaths. Whether you are doing this willfully or because you are stupid is unclear. Either way, you are wrong.
Ok, so it's ok to kill people if they only have a short time to live? That's when they need the most competent care to give them a dignified and "comfortable" end. A reasonable number of road accidents are caused by illness at the wheel. I'm just talking about deaths, not causes.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [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]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]These people who you are implying are not "terrible criminals" kill about as many people as are murdered around here. Earlier this week people were screaming for the pervert who took some photos of women and kids changing to be jailed. He could in no way hurt someone doing this. And yet when people speed in their car, directly putting the lives of others at risk, then it's a big waste of time and they are just ordinary people. Personally I'd rather have my kid photographed by a nonce than have to share roads with people driving like this.[/p][/quote]To put that into context, about 10 times as many die due to hospital blunders. Given that speeding is a problem, but limits and speed cameras don't actually solve that problem, these operations are entirely pointless. And in any case, the current obsession with courses actually allows speeders to be caught twice as many times before they are banned in 3 years. I'm sorry but this is about money, not road safety.[/p][/quote]That figure is rubbish. Just like the rest of your argument.[/p][/quote]No, none of it is rubbish: "There are almost 12,000 preventable deaths in hospital every year due to problems with care" https://www.lshtm.ac .uk/newsevents/news/ 2012/study_reveals_t rue_picture_of_preve ntable_deaths_in_hos pitals_.html "For reported road accidents in the year ending March 2013 1,680 people were killed" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-provisional-estima tes-q1-2013 Not 10 times exactly I agree but in that ballpark. And when you consider that speeding is only one and often not the primary factor in only 15% of road deaths, and that speeding enforcement does not even come close to eliminating speeding, if reducing deaths is your interest, of all the improvements that could be made here is an obvious one: send all the jobsworths, busy bodies and crooks in the speed industry into hospitals with buckets, mops, and a bottle of disinfectant instead.[/p][/quote]But the people you are talking about are mainly about to die anyway: "most preventable deaths occurred in those who were severely ill with multiple conditions and would have had less than a year to live" People killed on the roads are generally young. So you are talking about two completely different things. You are also conflating the cause of accidents with the cause of deaths. Whether you are doing this willfully or because you are stupid is unclear. Either way, you are wrong.[/p][/quote]Ok, so it's ok to kill people if they only have a short time to live? That's when they need the most competent care to give them a dignified and "comfortable" end. A reasonable number of road accidents are caused by illness at the wheel. I'm just talking about deaths, not causes. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

1:11pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Peroni says...

Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
Another one.

'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.'

No, no you can't.

You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones.

.
Yes you can... research it.
Got to laugh ,the police car in question was stopped at the red light waiting for it to change to go. !!!!!
Not parked on side of road.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar.[/p][/quote]Another one. 'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.' No, no you can't. You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones. .[/p][/quote]Yes you can... research it.[/p][/quote]Got to laugh ,the police car in question was stopped at the red light waiting for it to change to go. !!!!! Not parked on side of road. Peroni
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Peroni says...

smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Yes you try using your phone at the next set of lights that are red ,and if pulled say you are stationary ,they will nick you if you pull over anyway.
Police use the radios they got on their vest, while driving,we can't pick up the phone and throw on the seat and leave it and talk,we are told what to do......they do what they like ...
[quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Yes you try using your phone at the next set of lights that are red ,and if pulled say you are stationary ,they will nick you if you pull over anyway. Police use the radios they got on their vest, while driving,we can't pick up the phone and throw on the seat and leave it and talk,we are told what to do......they do what they like ... Peroni
  • Score: -3

1:37pm Fri 11 Apr 14

snowflakes says...

Wish they would catch the speeding nutter who has the black sports car ewith fin on back on back and passes the entrance to Linnet Road At 60 MPH..who comes down woodpecker and races like a eeeejit onto bypass. A child crossing would not stand a chance .
Wish they would catch the speeding nutter who has the black sports car ewith fin on back on back and passes the entrance to Linnet Road At 60 MPH..who comes down woodpecker and races like a eeeejit onto bypass. A child crossing would not stand a chance . snowflakes
  • Score: 2

1:43pm Fri 11 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

snowflakes wrote:
Wish they would catch the speeding nutter who has the black sports car ewith fin on back on back and passes the entrance to Linnet Road At 60 MPH..who comes down woodpecker and races like a eeeejit onto bypass. A child crossing would not stand a chance .
Problem is, he's probably worked out he just has to go slow near yellow boxes and stripy vans, so he can do what he likes
[quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: Wish they would catch the speeding nutter who has the black sports car ewith fin on back on back and passes the entrance to Linnet Road At 60 MPH..who comes down woodpecker and races like a eeeejit onto bypass. A child crossing would not stand a chance .[/p][/quote]Problem is, he's probably worked out he just has to go slow near yellow boxes and stripy vans, so he can do what he likes dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

5:09pm Fri 11 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
Another one.

'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.'

No, no you can't.

You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones.

.
Yes you can... research it.
If you insist.

The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)...

'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar.[/p][/quote]Another one. 'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.' No, no you can't. You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones. .[/p][/quote]Yes you can... research it.[/p][/quote]If you insist. The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)... 'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

5:16pm Fri 11 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
Another one.

'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.'

No, no you can't.

You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones.

.
Yes you can... research it.
If you insist.

The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)...

'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on
The AA:

'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on'
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar.[/p][/quote]Another one. 'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.' No, no you can't. You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones. .[/p][/quote]Yes you can... research it.[/p][/quote]If you insist. The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)... 'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on[/p][/quote]The AA: 'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on' scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Fri 11 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

FFS sodding computer. For the third time.

Well we've done the AA . (Source http://www.theaa.com
/motoring_advice/leg
al-advice/mobile-pho
nes.html)

How about a law firm?...

'Even being stopped in a lay-by but having the engine running could constitute driving with a mobile phone, it depends on the exact situation. The best advice to offer is to pull over in any acceptable lay-by, turn the engine off and then the road traffic laws shouldn’t be able to provide evidence for a conviction.'

Source: http://www.lawonthew
eb.co.uk/article_dir
ectory/road_traffic_
law/road_traffic_law
_and_mobile_phones

Go tell me again I'm wrong and you are right...
FFS sodding computer. For the third time. Well we've done the AA . (Source http://www.theaa.com /motoring_advice/leg al-advice/mobile-pho nes.html) How about a law firm?... 'Even being stopped in a lay-by but having the engine running could constitute driving with a mobile phone, it depends on the exact situation. The best advice to offer is to pull over in any acceptable lay-by, turn the engine off and then the road traffic laws shouldn’t be able to provide evidence for a conviction.' Source: http://www.lawonthew eb.co.uk/article_dir ectory/road_traffic_ law/road_traffic_law _and_mobile_phones Go tell me again I'm wrong and you are right... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Fri 11 Apr 14

bigd70 says...

Why dont we build cycle paths next to every road then the cyclests can ride on the road cos they CAN . Slowing everyone down . Job done
Why dont we build cycle paths next to every road then the cyclests can ride on the road cos they CAN . Slowing everyone down . Job done bigd70
  • Score: -2

10:52pm Fri 11 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

Dorsetspleen, why don't you just go and live on a remote island with no internet access so we can avoid hearing your repetitive condescending ignorant bleatings. I for one would appreciate not having these discussions dictated by you.
Dorsetspleen, why don't you just go and live on a remote island with no internet access so we can avoid hearing your repetitive condescending ignorant bleatings. I for one would appreciate not having these discussions dictated by you. tbpoole
  • Score: -2

11:08pm Fri 11 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
Dorsetspleen, why don't you just go and live on a remote island with no internet access so we can avoid hearing your repetitive condescending ignorant bleatings. I for one would appreciate not having these discussions dictated by you.
I wondered if you might turn up. Every time I contribute to an item you enter into substanceless criticism, and usually childish name calling, and every time I beat you with facts, realities and evidence. So once again I ask, please detail just one thing I have ever said which you don't agree with and why.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspleen, why don't you just go and live on a remote island with no internet access so we can avoid hearing your repetitive condescending ignorant bleatings. I for one would appreciate not having these discussions dictated by you.[/p][/quote]I wondered if you might turn up. Every time I contribute to an item you enter into substanceless criticism, and usually childish name calling, and every time I beat you with facts, realities and evidence. So once again I ask, please detail just one thing I have ever said which you don't agree with and why. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

11:24pm Fri 11 Apr 14

snowflakes says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
Another one.

'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.'

No, no you can't.

You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones.

.
Yes you can... research it.
If you insist.

The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)...

'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on
There are many nut jobs around. Recently a truck driver over took us on the inside slow lane, I looked up at him as he passed, mobile phone in one hand and chomping at a sandwich in another, barely holding the wheel.Unfortunately he was going too fast to see my middle finger as I raised it up in response to his mad driving and irresponsible behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar.[/p][/quote]Another one. 'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.' No, no you can't. You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones. .[/p][/quote]Yes you can... research it.[/p][/quote]If you insist. The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)... 'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on[/p][/quote]There are many nut jobs around. Recently a truck driver over took us on the inside slow lane, I looked up at him as he passed, mobile phone in one hand and chomping at a sandwich in another, barely holding the wheel.Unfortunately he was going too fast to see my middle finger as I raised it up in response to his mad driving and irresponsible behaviour. snowflakes
  • Score: -1

11:34pm Fri 11 Apr 14

snowflakes says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
After a few pints I always turn my phone off and drive very slightly slower than normal and observe things such as traffic signs/pedestrians much more intently than I normally would be bothered to. I think this is a fair trade off and has made me much more aware that I do not want to 'stand out' as an iffy driver and then draw attention form the old bill..
You see. We are not all irresponsible.
Doesn't work, after drinking a coffee, no alcohol, I was stopped and breathalised.....wai
t for it....The Police had followed me for quite a considerable length of time, ...and eventually overtook me and stopped me further on....here it is......I was stopped and breathalised for driving (((((((toooooooo slow ))))))))unbeleivable
. And put on my ...slow..journey home...lol
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: After a few pints I always turn my phone off and drive very slightly slower than normal and observe things such as traffic signs/pedestrians much more intently than I normally would be bothered to. I think this is a fair trade off and has made me much more aware that I do not want to 'stand out' as an iffy driver and then draw attention form the old bill.. You see. We are not all irresponsible.[/p][/quote]Doesn't work, after drinking a coffee, no alcohol, I was stopped and breathalised.....wai t for it....The Police had followed me for quite a considerable length of time, ...and eventually overtook me and stopped me further on....here it is......I was stopped and breathalised for driving (((((((toooooooo slow ))))))))unbeleivable . And put on my ...slow..journey home...lol snowflakes
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Sat 12 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Dorsetspleen, why don't you just go and live on a remote island with no internet access so we can avoid hearing your repetitive condescending ignorant bleatings. I for one would appreciate not having these discussions dictated by you.
I wondered if you might turn up. Every time I contribute to an item you enter into substanceless criticism, and usually childish name calling, and every time I beat you with facts, realities and evidence. So once again I ask, please detail just one thing I have ever said which you don't agree with and why.
The only place you've beaten me is in your own alternative reality.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspleen, why don't you just go and live on a remote island with no internet access so we can avoid hearing your repetitive condescending ignorant bleatings. I for one would appreciate not having these discussions dictated by you.[/p][/quote]I wondered if you might turn up. Every time I contribute to an item you enter into substanceless criticism, and usually childish name calling, and every time I beat you with facts, realities and evidence. So once again I ask, please detail just one thing I have ever said which you don't agree with and why.[/p][/quote]The only place you've beaten me is in your own alternative reality. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

1:40pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Poole Pirate says...

Brilliant !. The law is the law, if people don't break it they won't get penalised. Wear your seatbelt, don't use your phone and obey the speed limits.
Brilliant !. The law is the law, if people don't break it they won't get penalised. Wear your seatbelt, don't use your phone and obey the speed limits. Poole Pirate
  • Score: 1

9:51pm Mon 14 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

snowflakes wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
After a few pints I always turn my phone off and drive very slightly slower than normal and observe things such as traffic signs/pedestrians much more intently than I normally would be bothered to. I think this is a fair trade off and has made me much more aware that I do not want to 'stand out' as an iffy driver and then draw attention form the old bill..
You see. We are not all irresponsible.
Doesn't work, after drinking a coffee, no alcohol, I was stopped and breathalised.....wai

t for it....The Police had followed me for quite a considerable length of time, ...and eventually overtook me and stopped me further on....here it is......I was stopped and breathalised for driving (((((((toooooooo slow ))))))))unbeleivable

. And put on my ...slow..journey home...lol
Perfectly reasonable, that's a driving test failure for failing to make progress.
[quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: After a few pints I always turn my phone off and drive very slightly slower than normal and observe things such as traffic signs/pedestrians much more intently than I normally would be bothered to. I think this is a fair trade off and has made me much more aware that I do not want to 'stand out' as an iffy driver and then draw attention form the old bill.. You see. We are not all irresponsible.[/p][/quote]Doesn't work, after drinking a coffee, no alcohol, I was stopped and breathalised.....wai t for it....The Police had followed me for quite a considerable length of time, ...and eventually overtook me and stopped me further on....here it is......I was stopped and breathalised for driving (((((((toooooooo slow ))))))))unbeleivable . And put on my ...slow..journey home...lol[/p][/quote]Perfectly reasonable, that's a driving test failure for failing to make progress. breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

5:49am Tue 15 Apr 14

falco5 says...

The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.
I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.
Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki

ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.
Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! !
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.[/p][/quote]Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.[/p][/quote]Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! ! falco5
  • Score: 5

7:16am Tue 15 Apr 14

sundaydriver says...

falco5 wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.
I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.
Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki


ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.
Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! !
I drive for a living too and whilst catching up with a 30 or 40 mph driver in a 60 zone is frustrating sometimes I think idiots that speed past and overtake, usually driving quite ignorantly to the fact that they are outside of their limits is a bigger problem - speed kills - its a fact
[quote][p][bold]falco5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.[/p][/quote]Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.[/p][/quote]Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! ![/p][/quote]I drive for a living too and whilst catching up with a 30 or 40 mph driver in a 60 zone is frustrating sometimes I think idiots that speed past and overtake, usually driving quite ignorantly to the fact that they are outside of their limits is a bigger problem - speed kills - its a fact sundaydriver
  • Score: -2

9:12am Tue 15 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

sundaydriver wrote:
falco5 wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.
I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.
Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki



ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.
Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! !
I drive for a living too and whilst catching up with a 30 or 40 mph driver in a 60 zone is frustrating sometimes I think idiots that speed past and overtake, usually driving quite ignorantly to the fact that they are outside of their limits is a bigger problem - speed kills - its a fact
Speed doesn't kill... incompetence does.
[quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]falco5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.[/p][/quote]Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.[/p][/quote]Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! ![/p][/quote]I drive for a living too and whilst catching up with a 30 or 40 mph driver in a 60 zone is frustrating sometimes I think idiots that speed past and overtake, usually driving quite ignorantly to the fact that they are outside of their limits is a bigger problem - speed kills - its a fact[/p][/quote]Speed doesn't kill... incompetence does. Stereotyped
  • Score: 4

9:15am Tue 15 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

snowflakes wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
sprintervanman wrote:
smhinto wrote:
Peroni wrote:
My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile.
She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him.
I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!!
I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone.
.
Although I could be wrong on this one.
Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.
I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny.

My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?
Agree.

The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly.

If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.

But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did.

...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation.

5/10 close but no cigar.
Another one.

'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.'

No, no you can't.

You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones.

.
Yes you can... research it.
If you insist.

The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)...

'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on
There are many nut jobs around. Recently a truck driver over took us on the inside slow lane, I looked up at him as he passed, mobile phone in one hand and chomping at a sandwich in another, barely holding the wheel.Unfortunately he was going too fast to see my middle finger as I raised it up in response to his mad driving and irresponsible behaviour.
If you were 'overtaken' (undertaken) by a vehicle passing you on the inside lane (not slow lane, all same limit) then the question has to be asked...

How was this possible?

If there was room for a lorry to pass you on the inside, then I would assume you were not overtaking anybody at the time of using the outer lane, therefore in the wrong lane.

Your fault.

But, still doesn't get away from the fact the lorry driver was on the phone etc.
[quote][p][bold]snowflakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sprintervanman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peroni[/bold] wrote: My daughter said she was at the traffic lights at Ashley X the other week,and marked car had it's driver on a mobile. She said she wanted to jump out of her car and take picture of him. I said next time do it........double standards ,and it's not just the few !!![/p][/quote]I am led to beleive that if the car is stationary it is not an offence to use a mobile phone. . Although I could be wrong on this one.[/p][/quote]Very much wrong.The use of a mobile phone is Illegal whilst a driver is sat behind the wheel of a vehicle weather the car is moving or stationary.To a point pulling over and turning off the engine and removing the key from the ignition and answering a call or text you are still liable for a charge if the engine is still warm.Can you prove you did not answer a phone whilst you were stationary, you cant so best either switch off or put it out of sight and sound..The same applies for someone who is found in a vehicle over the drink drive limit who decided too sleep it off on the back seat.They are still in charge of that vehicle and will be treated as a drunk driver regardless.[/p][/quote]I love it when people come on here with a swagger of 'listen to me, I know the correct answer' and then spout a complete load of made up BS that is so wrong as to make it funny. My fave bit in this one (there are a number of major errors) is the 'if the engine is warm'. Brilliant. How do people come up with this?[/p][/quote]Agree. The drunk part is correct... but the mobile bit is wrong, partly. If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged. But if the key is not in ignition and the engine is warm...that is a load of rubbish. "You can't prove you didn't answer the call when you were driving"... by the same logic, they can't prove you did. ...by the same logic, how can someone walking down the street prove they didn't start that call when they were still driving their car, parked up, still taking, got out and walked away still having the same conversation. 5/10 close but no cigar.[/p][/quote]Another one. 'If you are in the drivers seat and the key is in the ignition, even if the engine is off...you can be charged.' No, no you can't. You can for drink driving you can't for mobile phones. .[/p][/quote]Yes you can... research it.[/p][/quote]If you insist. The AA (who are kind of up on this sort of thing)... 'It is illegal to use a mobile phone held in the hand while driving or while stopped with the engine on[/p][/quote]There are many nut jobs around. Recently a truck driver over took us on the inside slow lane, I looked up at him as he passed, mobile phone in one hand and chomping at a sandwich in another, barely holding the wheel.Unfortunately he was going too fast to see my middle finger as I raised it up in response to his mad driving and irresponsible behaviour.[/p][/quote]If you were 'overtaken' (undertaken) by a vehicle passing you on the inside lane (not slow lane, all same limit) then the question has to be asked... How was this possible? If there was room for a lorry to pass you on the inside, then I would assume you were not overtaking anybody at the time of using the outer lane, therefore in the wrong lane. Your fault. But, still doesn't get away from the fact the lorry driver was on the phone etc. Stereotyped
  • Score: 6

9:30am Tue 15 Apr 14

sundaydriver says...

Stereotyped wrote:
sundaydriver wrote:
falco5 wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.
I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.
Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki




ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.
Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! !
I drive for a living too and whilst catching up with a 30 or 40 mph driver in a 60 zone is frustrating sometimes I think idiots that speed past and overtake, usually driving quite ignorantly to the fact that they are outside of their limits is a bigger problem - speed kills - its a fact
Speed doesn't kill... incompetence does.
You are right
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]falco5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: It's quite clear why so many drivers are flouting the law. It's got little or nothing to do with policing (although more traffic patrols would be welcome) and everything to do with drivers' attitudes. Exactly the same sort of arrogant, ‘I'm above the law’ attitude you see in the comments of every story on this topic.[/p][/quote]I quite agree. It is easy to spot drivers with "bad attitude", but you will never design a box to be able to do it. Proper traffic patrols are one of the most likely best solutions.[/p][/quote]Well at least we agree on something. It seems that every time I go out nowadays, I see some terrible driving. People are forever cutting me up, overtaking/undertaki ng dangerously etc. I even had one van driver who slammed on the brakes in an attempt to get me to crash into the back of him on a high-speed dual carriageway. There are some complete psychos about.[/p][/quote]Is that because you are one of those idiots that drive at 30 to 40 mph in a 60 zone. I don't condone speeding at all but when you drive for a living it is extremely frustrating to be stuck behind one of these idiots and unfortunately it is becoming more and more common! ![/p][/quote]I drive for a living too and whilst catching up with a 30 or 40 mph driver in a 60 zone is frustrating sometimes I think idiots that speed past and overtake, usually driving quite ignorantly to the fact that they are outside of their limits is a bigger problem - speed kills - its a fact[/p][/quote]Speed doesn't kill... incompetence does.[/p][/quote]You are right sundaydriver
  • Score: 4

12:19pm Tue 15 Apr 14

kangaroo_joey says...

jill M wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.
The police don t get any bonus, and their pay is frozen. Think about them out on the streets tonight keeping you safe while you are tucked up nice and warm in your bed. Hopefully none of your family will ever be killed or maimed by a speeding driver, think about it before you make comments like the above.
This is the biggest joke, when was the last time you saw police patrolling at night, instead of actually doing a decent job and earning their money they go down the easy route of milking drivers for their awareness course. Its not hard to see why alot of people dispise the police, they' re just a big money grabbing scum as bankers and politicions
[quote][p][bold]jill M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the coppers involved will get a nice Xmas bonus for catching all those terrible criminals driving on our roads. Well done chaps. Excellent use of resources.[/p][/quote]The police don t get any bonus, and their pay is frozen. Think about them out on the streets tonight keeping you safe while you are tucked up nice and warm in your bed. Hopefully none of your family will ever be killed or maimed by a speeding driver, think about it before you make comments like the above.[/p][/quote]This is the biggest joke, when was the last time you saw police patrolling at night, instead of actually doing a decent job and earning their money they go down the easy route of milking drivers for their awareness course. Its not hard to see why alot of people dispise the police, they' re just a big money grabbing scum as bankers and politicions kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 3

12:22pm Tue 15 Apr 14

kangaroo_joey says...

And for the people arguing that speed kills, why do places like Germany have a lower death rate on their motorways than us when they dont have a legal speed limit on their motorways
And for the people arguing that speed kills, why do places like Germany have a lower death rate on their motorways than us when they dont have a legal speed limit on their motorways kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 4

12:26pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Poole Pirate says...

It's amazing that so many people are trying to argue against the basic laws of physics. If a child runs out into the road and gets hit by a car travelling at 40mph, irrespective of the competency of the driver, how can it be possible that the injuries sustained would be no worse that if the car was travelling at 30mph ?. It's absoultely the difference between life and death, and in this context, speed kills.
It's amazing that so many people are trying to argue against the basic laws of physics. If a child runs out into the road and gets hit by a car travelling at 40mph, irrespective of the competency of the driver, how can it be possible that the injuries sustained would be no worse that if the car was travelling at 30mph ?. It's absoultely the difference between life and death, and in this context, speed kills. Poole Pirate
  • Score: -3

12:55pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Stereotyped says...

Poole Pirate wrote:
It's amazing that so many people are trying to argue against the basic laws of physics. If a child runs out into the road and gets hit by a car travelling at 40mph, irrespective of the competency of the driver, how can it be possible that the injuries sustained would be no worse that if the car was travelling at 30mph ?. It's absoultely the difference between life and death, and in this context, speed kills.
Speeding...speed, learn the difference.

30mph is still 'a' speed... yet the kid would survive.

You mean excess speed? Thought so.
[quote][p][bold]Poole Pirate[/bold] wrote: It's amazing that so many people are trying to argue against the basic laws of physics. If a child runs out into the road and gets hit by a car travelling at 40mph, irrespective of the competency of the driver, how can it be possible that the injuries sustained would be no worse that if the car was travelling at 30mph ?. It's absoultely the difference between life and death, and in this context, speed kills.[/p][/quote]Speeding...speed, learn the difference. 30mph is still 'a' speed... yet the kid would survive. You mean excess speed? Thought so. Stereotyped
  • Score: 4

1:06pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Dorset Logic says...

Whine, Howl and Moan.
Welcome to the Echo.
Whine, Howl and Moan. Welcome to the Echo. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 1

1:13pm Tue 15 Apr 14

sundaydriver says...

Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding.

Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money)

Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse"

bet I get caught tomorrow............
....................
..
Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... .. sundaydriver
  • Score: -1

1:40pm Tue 15 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

sundaydriver wrote:
Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding.

Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money)

Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse"

bet I get caught tomorrow............

....................

..
But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.
[quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..[/p][/quote]But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

9:23am Wed 16 Apr 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
sundaydriver wrote:
Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding.

Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money)

Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse"

bet I get caught tomorrow............


....................


..
But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.
Hello Dorsetspeed,
I, for one, would dearly love to see Dorset Police sue you for libel, because then you would have to at least try and prove your case instead of just simply and endlessly spouting rhetoric that helps nobody and hinders everybody.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..[/p][/quote]But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, I, for one, would dearly love to see Dorset Police sue you for libel, because then you would have to at least try and prove your case instead of just simply and endlessly spouting rhetoric that helps nobody and hinders everybody. Rally
  • Score: -1

9:57am Wed 16 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
sundaydriver wrote:
Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding.

Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money)

Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse"

bet I get caught tomorrow............



....................



..
But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.
Hello Dorsetspeed,
I, for one, would dearly love to see Dorset Police sue you for libel, because then you would have to at least try and prove your case instead of just simply and endlessly spouting rhetoric that helps nobody and hinders everybody.
This is nothing different to what I have been saying for years and is under investigation now by the ipcc with a decision due shortly. I too would love them to try to sue me as that would make them look even more foolish than they already do.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..[/p][/quote]But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, I, for one, would dearly love to see Dorset Police sue you for libel, because then you would have to at least try and prove your case instead of just simply and endlessly spouting rhetoric that helps nobody and hinders everybody.[/p][/quote]This is nothing different to what I have been saying for years and is under investigation now by the ipcc with a decision due shortly. I too would love them to try to sue me as that would make them look even more foolish than they already do. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Poole Pirate says...

Stereotyped wrote:
Poole Pirate wrote:
It's amazing that so many people are trying to argue against the basic laws of physics. If a child runs out into the road and gets hit by a car travelling at 40mph, irrespective of the competency of the driver, how can it be possible that the injuries sustained would be no worse that if the car was travelling at 30mph ?. It's absoultely the difference between life and death, and in this context, speed kills.
Speeding...speed, learn the difference.

30mph is still 'a' speed... yet the kid would survive.

You mean excess speed? Thought so.
Well done my friend ! - interesting that you need to write a post explaining to yourself what you (and probably everyone else) already knew !. Think you possibly need to worry less about semantics and get out a little more ;-).

FYI - I was merely trying to relate my post the the campaign - 'Speed Kills', and in my example, 10mph is a speed !.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poole Pirate[/bold] wrote: It's amazing that so many people are trying to argue against the basic laws of physics. If a child runs out into the road and gets hit by a car travelling at 40mph, irrespective of the competency of the driver, how can it be possible that the injuries sustained would be no worse that if the car was travelling at 30mph ?. It's absoultely the difference between life and death, and in this context, speed kills.[/p][/quote]Speeding...speed, learn the difference. 30mph is still 'a' speed... yet the kid would survive. You mean excess speed? Thought so.[/p][/quote]Well done my friend ! - interesting that you need to write a post explaining to yourself what you (and probably everyone else) already knew !. Think you possibly need to worry less about semantics and get out a little more ;-). FYI - I was merely trying to relate my post the the campaign - 'Speed Kills', and in my example, 10mph is a speed !. Poole Pirate
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Wed 16 Apr 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
sundaydriver wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..
But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.
The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..[/p][/quote]But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Rally says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
sundaydriver wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..
But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.
The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner.
FNS-man, you miss the point.
Dorsetspeed is undoubtedly Britain's best driver and only he and he alone knows what is and what is not an appropriate speed for any given road in any given conditions.
He's quite clever, really.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..[/p][/quote]But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner.[/p][/quote]FNS-man, you miss the point. Dorsetspeed is undoubtedly Britain's best driver and only he and he alone knows what is and what is not an appropriate speed for any given road in any given conditions. He's quite clever, really. Rally
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Wed 16 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
sundaydriver wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..
But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.
The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner.
Completely different point. There are plenty of 60 limit roads where there will be many vulnerable road users, and 30, 40, 50 limit roads where there won't be (and guess where the enforcement will be most likely to be). You need to drive at a speed at which you can stop in the space which is clear and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. A fixed number cannot provide this. I would prefer my family and I to be amongst drivers who are polite, attentive, thinking and anticipating than drivers obsessed with a number.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..[/p][/quote]But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner.[/p][/quote]Completely different point. There are plenty of 60 limit roads where there will be many vulnerable road users, and 30, 40, 50 limit roads where there won't be (and guess where the enforcement will be most likely to be). You need to drive at a speed at which you can stop in the space which is clear and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. A fixed number cannot provide this. I would prefer my family and I to be amongst drivers who are polite, attentive, thinking and anticipating than drivers obsessed with a number. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Wed 16 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.
Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
sundaydriver wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..
But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.
The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner.
Completely different point. There are plenty of 60 limit roads where there will be many vulnerable road users, and 30, 40, 50 limit roads where there won't be (and guess where the enforcement will be most likely to be). You need to drive at a speed at which you can stop in the space which is clear and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. A fixed number cannot provide this. I would prefer my family and I to be amongst drivers who are polite, attentive, thinking and anticipating than drivers obsessed with a number.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

You wrote, 'You need to drive at a speed at which you can stop in the space which is clear and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter.'
You missed out ' . . . and does not exceed the posted speed limit.'

You wrote, 'A fixed number cannot provide this. I would prefer my family and I to be amongst drivers who are polite, attentive, thinking and anticipating than drivers .'
So, treating the posted speed limit as a limit and not a target makes a driver 'obsessed with a number', does it?
Could it be that Dorsetspeed is revealing his true colours . . .
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sundaydriver[/bold] wrote: Reality of life peeps - what people always whinge about is traffic cops especially when they do you for speeding. Cars are our freedom - roads have calculated speed limits - break the limits and risk getting caught by the feds and then we have to pay a fine! that's what hurts as not only do you have to pay money for the offence but then the old insurance companies bang your premium up because of the perceived additional risk (really just an excuse to charge you more money) Don't speed - don't get caught out - like the sign says "no excuse" bet I get caught tomorrow............ .................... ..[/p][/quote]But there is also no excuse for what can only be interpreted as lying, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception, fraud, breach of duty of care, misrepresentation, false accounting, corruption, etc. all of which are apparent in the actions of Dorset Police and which they refuse to deny, explain, or discuss. These things are far worse than driving at 10% below average speeds where councillors, not engineers, have reduced speed limits far below what can possibly be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]The speeds you wish to drive at may be safe for you in your car. They are not safe for the other vulnerable road users - walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. All these people have as much right as you to use the roads. I bet you wouldn't want to drive 60 mph down a country lane if you thought a member of your family was on a bike round the next corner.[/p][/quote]Completely different point. There are plenty of 60 limit roads where there will be many vulnerable road users, and 30, 40, 50 limit roads where there won't be (and guess where the enforcement will be most likely to be). You need to drive at a speed at which you can stop in the space which is clear and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. A fixed number cannot provide this. I would prefer my family and I to be amongst drivers who are polite, attentive, thinking and anticipating than drivers obsessed with a number.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, 'You need to drive at a speed at which you can stop in the space which is clear and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter.' You missed out ' . . . and does not exceed the posted speed limit.' You wrote, 'A fixed number cannot provide this. I would prefer my family and I to be amongst drivers who are polite, attentive, thinking and anticipating than drivers .' So, treating the posted speed limit as a limit and not a target makes a driver 'obsessed with a number', does it? Could it be that Dorsetspeed is revealing his true colours . . . Rally
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.
Hello Dorsetspeed,
You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.'

Too low for whom and or what?
Please elucidate.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.' Too low for whom and or what? Please elucidate. Rally
  • Score: -1

3:56pm Wed 16 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.
Hello Dorsetspeed,
You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.'

Too low for whom and or what?
Please elucidate.
Too low as a maximum speed limit of course
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.' Too low for whom and or what? Please elucidate.[/p][/quote]Too low as a maximum speed limit of course dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.
Hello Dorsetspeed,
You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.'

Too low for whom and or what?
Please elucidate.
Too low as a maximum speed limit of course
Hello Dorsetspeed,
'Too low as a maximum speed limit of course' is highly subjective and effectively meaningless.
Have you nothing objective and meaningful to say in answer to my question 'Too low for whom and or what?' ?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.' Too low for whom and or what? Please elucidate.[/p][/quote]Too low as a maximum speed limit of course[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, 'Too low as a maximum speed limit of course' is highly subjective and effectively meaningless. Have you nothing objective and meaningful to say in answer to my question 'Too low for whom and or what?' ? Rally
  • Score: -1

9:47pm Wed 16 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.
Hello Dorsetspeed,
You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.'

Too low for whom and or what?
Please elucidate.
Too low as a maximum speed limit of course
Hello Dorsetspeed,
'Too low as a maximum speed limit of course' is highly subjective and effectively meaningless.
Have you nothing objective and meaningful to say in answer to my question 'Too low for whom and or what?' ?
Blimey, I'm not really sure what you are on about. Obviously, when the limit is set at 50MPH when the AVERAGE speed is 63, (i.e. 20% below the average speed) the only thing that will result is poor compliance, wider disrespect of speed limits and huge enforcement income, and danger when drivers panic brake when they see speed cameras (which has resulted in at least one death in Dorset). Not saying how that's how it should be, but that's what is going to happen. i.e. the SPEED LIMIT IS TOO LOW.

To see how absolutely, totally, ridiculous speed limits are have a look at this:

http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/limits/Def
ault.aspx

Yes, the top 6 pictures are 60 limits, the top 5 close to the Lytchett Minster school. Compare these with the 50 limits on the Dorset Way or A338. So to say that those who drive above the limit, no matter by how little, are dangerous, and those who do not are safe, is totally bonkers. The approach we had before the financial motivations took over was the right one, the limit was more for guidance and some discretion was employed based on how the person was driving. It's called common sense.

Road safety is a complex issue, it is plainly obvious there is more to it than a number. Yes we need limits and enforcements but it must be balanced, proportionate and sensible and it currently is not.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, I'm not that clever but I do know that a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low. The top 2 enforcement locations in terms of cash generation in Dorset are on such roads and one such enforcement activity was a primary factor in a road death.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, ' . . . a limit set 20% below even average speeds on no safety basis whatsoever is too low.' Too low for whom and or what? Please elucidate.[/p][/quote]Too low as a maximum speed limit of course[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, 'Too low as a maximum speed limit of course' is highly subjective and effectively meaningless. Have you nothing objective and meaningful to say in answer to my question 'Too low for whom and or what?' ?[/p][/quote]Blimey, I'm not really sure what you are on about. Obviously, when the limit is set at 50MPH when the AVERAGE speed is 63, (i.e. 20% below the average speed) the only thing that will result is poor compliance, wider disrespect of speed limits and huge enforcement income, and danger when drivers panic brake when they see speed cameras (which has resulted in at least one death in Dorset). Not saying how that's how it should be, but that's what is going to happen. i.e. the SPEED LIMIT IS TOO LOW. To see how absolutely, totally, ridiculous speed limits are have a look at this: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/limits/Def ault.aspx Yes, the top 6 pictures are 60 limits, the top 5 close to the Lytchett Minster school. Compare these with the 50 limits on the Dorset Way or A338. So to say that those who drive above the limit, no matter by how little, are dangerous, and those who do not are safe, is totally bonkers. The approach we had before the financial motivations took over was the right one, the limit was more for guidance and some discretion was employed based on how the person was driving. It's called common sense. Road safety is a complex issue, it is plainly obvious there is more to it than a number. Yes we need limits and enforcements but it must be balanced, proportionate and sensible and it currently is not. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree