Mobile speed camera locations across Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset

Mobile speed camera locations across Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset

Mobile speed camera locations across Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset

First published in News
Last updated

These are the locations where Dorset Road Safe operate mobile cameras on a regular basis:

 Map locations marked are an approximate guide to police mobile camera locations and are not to be taken as an accurate position

  • A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch,
  • Constitution Hill Road, Poole
  • B3065 The Avenue, Poole
  • Charminster Avenue, Bournemouth
  • B3369 Sandbanks Road, Poole
  • Stone Lane, Wimborne Minster
  • B3074 Higher Blandford Road, Poole
  • Poole Road, Upton
  • A350 Holes Bay Road, Poole
  • A3049 Dorset Way Poole (Holes Bay Road to Tower Park)
  • A350 Upton Country Park to A35 j/w Creekmoor
  • A338 Wessex Way at Cooper Dean
  • A35 Upton Road, Poole
  • A348 Ringwood Road near Bear Cross Roundabout
  • A338 Spur Road, Bournemouth toward Ringwood
  • B3065 Pinecliff Road Poole
  • Southbourne Overcliff Drive, Bournemouth
  • A35 Winterborne Abbas
  • Littledown Avenue, Bournemouth
  • Dorchester Road, Poole
  • B3072 Station Road, West Moors
  • A31 at Winterborne Zelston
  • West Way, Bournemouth
  • A3049 Dorset Way
  • A35 Dorchester Road Near Walditch
  • Old Wareham Road Poole

The Partnership reserves the right to operate at any site within the county at any time on an occasional basis, in reaction to speed complaints, partnership or community concerns

Comments (183)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:12am Tue 29 Apr 14

billy bumble says...

Thank you for your ATM update
Thank you for your ATM update billy bumble
  • Score: 8

5:40am Tue 29 Apr 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....
Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show.... Chris@Bmouth
  • Score: 54

6:33am Tue 29 Apr 14

ian t says...

money money money
money money money ian t
  • Score: 55

6:55am Tue 29 Apr 14

user_name says...

Chris@Bmouth wrote:
Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....
I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt.
[quote][p][bold]Chris@Bmouth[/bold] wrote: Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....[/p][/quote]I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt. user_name
  • Score: 1

7:01am Tue 29 Apr 14

alasdair1967 says...

user_name wrote:
Chris@Bmouth wrote:
Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....
I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt.
I know where I would rather see the during the rush hour / school run ,in the pedestrian areas and school areas ,not on an open stretch of dual carriageway rather one person caught outside of a school than multitudes on the dual carriage way
[quote][p][bold]user_name[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris@Bmouth[/bold] wrote: Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....[/p][/quote]I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt.[/p][/quote]I know where I would rather see the during the rush hour / school run ,in the pedestrian areas and school areas ,not on an open stretch of dual carriageway rather one person caught outside of a school than multitudes on the dual carriage way alasdair1967
  • Score: 41

7:12am Tue 29 Apr 14

joetheman says...

For F Sake, i suppose the echo will give the addresses of people on holiday next so that they can be robbed, it just baffles me when the echo have anti speeding, drink driving , parking,seatbelt and mobile phone campains,and then warn motorists where the deterants are,
For F Sake, i suppose the echo will give the addresses of people on holiday next so that they can be robbed, it just baffles me when the echo have anti speeding, drink driving , parking,seatbelt and mobile phone campains,and then warn motorists where the deterants are, joetheman
  • Score: -41

7:33am Tue 29 Apr 14

davecook says...

alasdair1967 wrote:
user_name wrote:
Chris@Bmouth wrote:
Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....
I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt.
I know where I would rather see the during the rush hour / school run ,in the pedestrian areas and school areas ,not on an open stretch of dual carriageway rather one person caught outside of a school than multitudes on the dual carriage way
No point in having speed cameras outside schools at the end of the school day, it's rare you can travel past any school at above 10mph anyway.
[quote][p][bold]alasdair1967[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]user_name[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris@Bmouth[/bold] wrote: Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....[/p][/quote]I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt.[/p][/quote]I know where I would rather see the during the rush hour / school run ,in the pedestrian areas and school areas ,not on an open stretch of dual carriageway rather one person caught outside of a school than multitudes on the dual carriage way[/p][/quote]No point in having speed cameras outside schools at the end of the school day, it's rare you can travel past any school at above 10mph anyway. davecook
  • Score: 28

7:36am Tue 29 Apr 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Have repeatedly asked for them to visit the estate where I live due to the wide roads high numbers of children and elderly pedestrians, no safe places to cross and reckless drivers, to no avail. The Dorset Road Safety Partnership is only interested in placing cameras in areas of large flow to make the most money!
Have repeatedly asked for them to visit the estate where I live due to the wide roads high numbers of children and elderly pedestrians, no safe places to cross and reckless drivers, to no avail. The Dorset Road Safety Partnership is only interested in placing cameras in areas of large flow to make the most money! itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: 50

8:08am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes.

The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.
Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes. The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 25

8:11am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

user_name wrote:
Chris@Bmouth wrote:
Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....
I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt.
Most places have had serious or fatal accidents. The cause is usually bad driving, not the location. We therefore need proper police targeting bad driving, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions (and usually increasing danger) and refusing to communicate about it.
[quote][p][bold]user_name[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris@Bmouth[/bold] wrote: Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....[/p][/quote]I know that a few of those places have had fatal or near fatal accidents. Just because they are not near a school doesn't mean people can't get hurt.[/p][/quote]Most places have had serious or fatal accidents. The cause is usually bad driving, not the location. We therefore need proper police targeting bad driving, not jobsworths sitting in vans making £millions (and usually increasing danger) and refusing to communicate about it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 19

8:17am Tue 29 Apr 14

nickynoodah says...

pic above
a previous poster says he looks like Mr Bean,
I say nothing like him.
pic above a previous poster says he looks like Mr Bean, I say nothing like him. nickynoodah
  • Score: -20

8:34am Tue 29 Apr 14

Wesoblind says...

They should sit on roundabouts giving fpn to people who dont indicate, these people cause accidents and ive noticed they cause ques at peak times.
Speed cameras are dangerous, even when i know im not speeding i still can help but look down at the speedo and some people even doing the limit crank on the brakes.

They were sat blocking a cicle lane changing the film in the camera on hurn rd the other day causing allsorts of mayhem!
They should sit on roundabouts giving fpn to people who dont indicate, these people cause accidents and ive noticed they cause ques at peak times. Speed cameras are dangerous, even when i know im not speeding i still can help but look down at the speedo and some people even doing the limit crank on the brakes. They were sat blocking a cicle lane changing the film in the camera on hurn rd the other day causing allsorts of mayhem! Wesoblind
  • Score: 9

8:40am Tue 29 Apr 14

canfordcherry says...

Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple! canfordcherry
  • Score: -16

8:41am Tue 29 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes.

The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.
Dangerous, what complete tosh. Whatever you're smoking, can I have some please?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes. The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.[/p][/quote]Dangerous, what complete tosh. Whatever you're smoking, can I have some please? breamoreboy
  • Score: -22

8:49am Tue 29 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Chris@Bmouth wrote:
Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....
But of course they will not set up cameras near any school during the usual school run times, because if their prime motive is raking in money they know full well that nobody can speed near a school when the parent's cars are all clogging up the roads - a point however completely missed by the champions of expensive inconvenient 24/7 traffic calming at these very same locations!
[quote][p][bold]Chris@Bmouth[/bold] wrote: Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....[/p][/quote]But of course they will not set up cameras near any school during the usual school run times, because if their prime motive is raking in money they know full well that nobody can speed near a school when the parent's cars are all clogging up the roads - a point however completely missed by the champions of expensive inconvenient 24/7 traffic calming at these very same locations! muscliffman
  • Score: 29

8:50am Tue 29 Apr 14

billy bumble says...

I see from their website that the last published audited accounts were 2008/9

Anyone know what actually happens to the (obscene amount of ) money collected?

Do they have enough money to finance eg the retention of the Christchurch Police Station?

S'ok - the second question was not a serious one - I am not that naive

The first question was though
I see from their website that the last published audited accounts were 2008/9 Anyone know what actually happens to the (obscene amount of ) money collected? Do they have enough money to finance eg the retention of the Christchurch Police Station? S'ok - the second question was not a serious one - I am not that naive The first question was though billy bumble
  • Score: 9

8:51am Tue 29 Apr 14

ReservoirFrogs says...

or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.
or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe. ReservoirFrogs
  • Score: 9

8:51am Tue 29 Apr 14

RAMON HH says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes.

The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.
Dorset Police obviously does not wish to comply to being 'transparent' in this very lucrative revenue collecting scam.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes. The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.[/p][/quote]Dorset Police obviously does not wish to comply to being 'transparent' in this very lucrative revenue collecting scam. RAMON HH
  • Score: 14

8:54am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

8:57am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

billy bumble wrote:
I see from their website that the last published audited accounts were 2008/9

Anyone know what actually happens to the (obscene amount of ) money collected?

Do they have enough money to finance eg the retention of the Christchurch Police Station?

S'ok - the second question was not a serious one - I am not that naive

The first question was though
Seriously, I have been trying to get the figures for 3 years. This is now a part of a serious complaint the IPCC upheld after Dorset Police totally ignored it at every level. However it is now looking like even the IPCC will protect Dorset Police as it's all gone completely silent. Full story coming soon.
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: I see from their website that the last published audited accounts were 2008/9 Anyone know what actually happens to the (obscene amount of ) money collected? Do they have enough money to finance eg the retention of the Christchurch Police Station? S'ok - the second question was not a serious one - I am not that naive The first question was though[/p][/quote]Seriously, I have been trying to get the figures for 3 years. This is now a part of a serious complaint the IPCC upheld after Dorset Police totally ignored it at every level. However it is now looking like even the IPCC will protect Dorset Police as it's all gone completely silent. Full story coming soon. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 13

8:58am Tue 29 Apr 14

smhinto says...

A most effective way of reducing speeding adjacent to schools is to introduce road-humps or speed retarders. Drivers naturally slow down when negotiating these things and I am sure that they are far cheaper to maintain and operate than a speed camera.
.
But as we all know speed-humps or speed retarders do not generate any cash do they ??!! Typical.
.
I am also a firm believer that it is not speed that kills, it is in fact a lack of education and common sense.
A most effective way of reducing speeding adjacent to schools is to introduce road-humps or speed retarders. Drivers naturally slow down when negotiating these things and I am sure that they are far cheaper to maintain and operate than a speed camera. . But as we all know speed-humps or speed retarders do not generate any cash do they ??!! Typical. . I am also a firm believer that it is not speed that kills, it is in fact a lack of education and common sense. smhinto
  • Score: 4

9:02am Tue 29 Apr 14

billy bumble says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
billy bumble wrote:
I see from their website that the last published audited accounts were 2008/9

Anyone know what actually happens to the (obscene amount of ) money collected?

Do they have enough money to finance eg the retention of the Christchurch Police Station?

S'ok - the second question was not a serious one - I am not that naive

The first question was though
Seriously, I have been trying to get the figures for 3 years. This is now a part of a serious complaint the IPCC upheld after Dorset Police totally ignored it at every level. However it is now looking like even the IPCC will protect Dorset Police as it's all gone completely silent. Full story coming soon.
The IPCC are as venal, brutal, corrupt and stupid as the police
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: I see from their website that the last published audited accounts were 2008/9 Anyone know what actually happens to the (obscene amount of ) money collected? Do they have enough money to finance eg the retention of the Christchurch Police Station? S'ok - the second question was not a serious one - I am not that naive The first question was though[/p][/quote]Seriously, I have been trying to get the figures for 3 years. This is now a part of a serious complaint the IPCC upheld after Dorset Police totally ignored it at every level. However it is now looking like even the IPCC will protect Dorset Police as it's all gone completely silent. Full story coming soon.[/p][/quote]The IPCC are as venal, brutal, corrupt and stupid as the police billy bumble
  • Score: 5

9:02am Tue 29 Apr 14

DiggerRuss says...

If it's not about the money then why did the safety camera partnership Increase the speed limits for the driver awareness course as soon as the government required all speeding offence funds where points were given be given to central government?

You can now do 42 in a 30 and still be sent on the course.
It was never this high? It's just so they can keep the money for Dorset police!
If it's not about the money then why did the safety camera partnership Increase the speed limits for the driver awareness course as soon as the government required all speeding offence funds where points were given be given to central government? You can now do 42 in a 30 and still be sent on the course. It was never this high? It's just so they can keep the money for Dorset police! DiggerRuss
  • Score: 15

9:07am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

ReservoirFrogs wrote:
or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.
What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is.

But when you think about it, it's not surprising.

Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible.

How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else?
[quote][p][bold]ReservoirFrogs[/bold] wrote: or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.[/p][/quote]What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is. But when you think about it, it's not surprising. Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible. How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 7

9:11am Tue 29 Apr 14

BarrHumbug says...

No need to patrol outside schools, they've already got that cash cow covered with the parking patrol car dishing out tickets ;)
No need to patrol outside schools, they've already got that cash cow covered with the parking patrol car dishing out tickets ;) BarrHumbug
  • Score: 10

9:15am Tue 29 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all!
Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all! muscliffman
  • Score: 14

9:27am Tue 29 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous. breamoreboy
  • Score: -9

9:29am Tue 29 Apr 14

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Don't forget they are often in The Grove ,Christchurch by the shops.
Don't forget they are often in The Grove ,Christchurch by the shops. Telscombe Cliffy
  • Score: 5

9:31am Tue 29 Apr 14

miltonarcher says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
ReservoirFrogs wrote:
or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.
What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is.

But when you think about it, it's not surprising.

Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible.

How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else?
Give it a rest for pities sake. Drive at 80mph in a 50 limit you deserve all you get. Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem. Cue the brain dead thumbs down.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ReservoirFrogs[/bold] wrote: or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.[/p][/quote]What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is. But when you think about it, it's not surprising. Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible. How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else?[/p][/quote]Give it a rest for pities sake. Drive at 80mph in a 50 limit you deserve all you get. Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem. Cue the brain dead thumbs down. miltonarcher
  • Score: -3

9:31am Tue 29 Apr 14

MotorbikeSam says...

I see Dorset Speed is still spouting garbage as usual ...
the speed cameras can go where ever they like as far as me and every other law abiding road user are concerned. and the more the better....
And I am waiting for the day Dorset Speed to get a knock on the door as it is illegal to incite law breaking .
Its great for a driver to say "I know best" when it come to speed.
all road deaths are caused by speed. It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger, at 10 mph it is almost impossible to hurt some one at 30 the danger increases at 60 it is positively dangerous, as the powers that be know the limit has to be set at a sensible speed, that Mr D Speed is what those big round signs with a number in them so do as society has decided and stick to the limit your licence will love for it !!
I see Dorset Speed is still spouting garbage as usual ... the speed cameras can go where ever they like as far as me and every other law abiding road user are concerned. and the more the better.... And I am waiting for the day Dorset Speed to get a knock on the door as it is illegal to incite law breaking . Its great for a driver to say "I know best" when it come to speed. all road deaths are caused by speed. It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger, at 10 mph it is almost impossible to hurt some one at 30 the danger increases at 60 it is positively dangerous, as the powers that be know the limit has to be set at a sensible speed, that Mr D Speed is what those big round signs with a number in them so do as society has decided and stick to the limit your licence will love for it !! MotorbikeSam
  • Score: 0

9:35am Tue 29 Apr 14

Redgolfer says...

Can I add a few more that we come across as night time taxi drivers, Wimborne Rd between Richmond Hill and Cemetery Junction on opposite side to Gatso camera, Lindsey Road by Wilderton Road, Lansdown Road by Flyover, Poole Road between Westbourne and Queens Road.
Can I add a few more that we come across as night time taxi drivers, Wimborne Rd between Richmond Hill and Cemetery Junction on opposite side to Gatso camera, Lindsey Road by Wilderton Road, Lansdown Road by Flyover, Poole Road between Westbourne and Queens Road. Redgolfer
  • Score: 4

9:39am Tue 29 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

miltonarcher wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
ReservoirFrogs wrote:
or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.
What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is.

But when you think about it, it's not surprising.

Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible.

How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else?
Give it a rest for pities sake. Drive at 80mph in a 50 limit you deserve all you get. Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem. Cue the brain dead thumbs down.
Cue the brain working extremely well thank you thumbs up :-)
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ReservoirFrogs[/bold] wrote: or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.[/p][/quote]What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is. But when you think about it, it's not surprising. Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible. How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else?[/p][/quote]Give it a rest for pities sake. Drive at 80mph in a 50 limit you deserve all you get. Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem. Cue the brain dead thumbs down.[/p][/quote]Cue the brain working extremely well thank you thumbs up :-) breamoreboy
  • Score: -14

9:41am Tue 29 Apr 14

High Treason says...

Listen to the whiners who only care about themselves. A camera along Whitelegg Way would catch quite a few and Wimborne Rd adjacent to Whitelegg Way, used as a short cut in an attempt to get ahead of other cars.
The more they catch the better and up the fines to £150.
Listen to the whiners who only care about themselves. A camera along Whitelegg Way would catch quite a few and Wimborne Rd adjacent to Whitelegg Way, used as a short cut in an attempt to get ahead of other cars. The more they catch the better and up the fines to £150. High Treason
  • Score: -12

9:42am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:46am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

miltonarcher wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
ReservoirFrogs wrote:
or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.
What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is.

But when you think about it, it's not surprising.

Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible.

How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else?
Give it a rest for pities sake. Drive at 80mph in a 50 limit you deserve all you get. Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem. Cue the brain dead thumbs down.
"Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem"

Good driving is about far more than being legal. The vast majority of road deaths and serious injuries involve simple driver error, rather than "injudicious" action. PLEASE do not think that just because you are "legal" you are safe.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ReservoirFrogs[/bold] wrote: or....pretend they are on every road and don't drive over the speed limit anywhere.Stay within the law and stay safe.[/p][/quote]What a simplistic comment. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Accidents with speed as a factor resulting in deaths and serious injuries are just as likely to involve "inappropriate speed" (i.e. within the speed limit) as "exceeding the speed limit". Seems that number in the circle isn't quite the holy grail of road safety many think it is. But when you think about it, it's not surprising. Actually, good driving is about using position, distance, observation, anticipation, and speed, to make collision with anything within the space that is clear and visible in front of you in which you can safely and completely stop almost completely impossible. How could anyone possibly think that just a number is more important than anything else?[/p][/quote]Give it a rest for pities sake. Drive at 80mph in a 50 limit you deserve all you get. Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem. Cue the brain dead thumbs down.[/p][/quote]"Stay legal, and that includes all aspects of driving including undertaking then no problem" Good driving is about far more than being legal. The vast majority of road deaths and serious injuries involve simple driver error, rather than "injudicious" action. PLEASE do not think that just because you are "legal" you are safe. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

9:48am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
I see Dorset Speed is still spouting garbage as usual ...
the speed cameras can go where ever they like as far as me and every other law abiding road user are concerned. and the more the better....
And I am waiting for the day Dorset Speed to get a knock on the door as it is illegal to incite law breaking .
Its great for a driver to say "I know best" when it come to speed.
all road deaths are caused by speed. It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger, at 10 mph it is almost impossible to hurt some one at 30 the danger increases at 60 it is positively dangerous, as the powers that be know the limit has to be set at a sensible speed, that Mr D Speed is what those big round signs with a number in them so do as society has decided and stick to the limit your licence will love for it !!
"all road deaths are caused by speed"
"It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger"

Talk about "spouting garbage"!
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I see Dorset Speed is still spouting garbage as usual ... the speed cameras can go where ever they like as far as me and every other law abiding road user are concerned. and the more the better.... And I am waiting for the day Dorset Speed to get a knock on the door as it is illegal to incite law breaking . Its great for a driver to say "I know best" when it come to speed. all road deaths are caused by speed. It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger, at 10 mph it is almost impossible to hurt some one at 30 the danger increases at 60 it is positively dangerous, as the powers that be know the limit has to be set at a sensible speed, that Mr D Speed is what those big round signs with a number in them so do as society has decided and stick to the limit your licence will love for it !![/p][/quote]"all road deaths are caused by speed" "It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger" Talk about "spouting garbage"! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 8

10:07am Tue 29 Apr 14

rayc says...

I wonder why this article has been put on the website? It is not news it appears weekly in the Echo and is a direct copy of the info on Dorset roadsafe website. Perhaps the Echo is desperate to get some income from the speed camera debates such as this?
The B3074 Higher Blandford Road site is outside Corfe Hills School. There will never be any enforcement during school entry or egress times but when traffic is light. it is also interesting that Lower Blandford Road has a 40mph speed limit on it despite being much more built up.
I wonder why this article has been put on the website? It is not news it appears weekly in the Echo and is a direct copy of the info on Dorset roadsafe website. Perhaps the Echo is desperate to get some income from the speed camera debates such as this? The B3074 Higher Blandford Road site is outside Corfe Hills School. There will never be any enforcement during school entry or egress times but when traffic is light. it is also interesting that Lower Blandford Road has a 40mph speed limit on it despite being much more built up. rayc
  • Score: 8

10:07am Tue 29 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding. The Liberal
  • Score: 2

10:17am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

The Liberal wrote:
I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money.

I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so.

And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

10:18am Tue 29 Apr 14

speedy231278 says...

The Liberal wrote:
I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
In that case, why won't they say where the money goes? it is perfectly rational to prevent speeding, especially in dangerous areas, but when they mostly seem to target areas where being 10mph over the limit would be far less dangerous than others where only being a few mph over would be, AND they won't say what they are doing with the fines, you have to wonder.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]In that case, why won't they say where the money goes? it is perfectly rational to prevent speeding, especially in dangerous areas, but when they mostly seem to target areas where being 10mph over the limit would be far less dangerous than others where only being a few mph over would be, AND they won't say what they are doing with the fines, you have to wonder. speedy231278
  • Score: 10

10:22am Tue 29 Apr 14

TWERLY says...

It's not only speeding that kills so do those idiots not in control of their vehicles when using hand held mobile phones and now TABLETS !!!! Get them too !!!
It's not only speeding that kills so do those idiots not in control of their vehicles when using hand held mobile phones and now TABLETS !!!! Get them too !!! TWERLY
  • Score: 16

10:32am Tue 29 Apr 14

Lord Spring says...

Redgolfer wrote:
Can I add a few more that we come across as night time taxi drivers, Wimborne Rd between Richmond Hill and Cemetery Junction on opposite side to Gatso camera, Lindsey Road by Wilderton Road, Lansdown Road by Flyover, Poole Road between Westbourne and Queens Road.
They are more likely for the purpose of catching drivers under the influence.
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Can I add a few more that we come across as night time taxi drivers, Wimborne Rd between Richmond Hill and Cemetery Junction on opposite side to Gatso camera, Lindsey Road by Wilderton Road, Lansdown Road by Flyover, Poole Road between Westbourne and Queens Road.[/p][/quote]They are more likely for the purpose of catching drivers under the influence. Lord Spring
  • Score: 1

10:45am Tue 29 Apr 14

simnic says...

why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple! simnic
  • Score: 5

10:54am Tue 29 Apr 14

PokesdownMark says...

Worth repeating that the majority of convictions, more than a third, come from their Cooper Dean location in the immediate vicinity of the drop from 70mph to 50mph. Most drivers caught here are doing less than 62mph. Hardly dangerous - although the sudden braking when they are operating is a total menace and makes this location far more dangerous than when they are not there. It actually has caused a fatality!

It is very clear - this is nothing to do with road safety. I have notified them of a clear safety issue with incorrect road signs. Remember 'engineering' is in their remit too. Result... nothing. Not interested. It would involve spending money not receiving it.

The most dangerous things on the roads.... tailgating, failing to observe and deficient eye-sight. The first thing I was told on my Dorset driver awareness course? Speed really isn't an issue. That's exactly what they said right at the start! Why was I there? 57mph heading north at cooper dean 8 seconds short of the 70mph due to wanting to make room for a VERY overcrowded lane 1 to 'fill in' behind me - diamond pattern. Well that's what you get for using defensive driving techniques in Dorset.
Worth repeating that the majority of convictions, more than a third, come from their Cooper Dean location in the immediate vicinity of the drop from 70mph to 50mph. Most drivers caught here are doing less than 62mph. Hardly dangerous - although the sudden braking when they are operating is a total menace and makes this location far more dangerous than when they are not there. It actually has caused a fatality! It is very clear - this is nothing to do with road safety. I have notified them of a clear safety issue with incorrect road signs. Remember 'engineering' is in their remit too. Result... nothing. Not interested. It would involve spending money not receiving it. The most dangerous things on the roads.... tailgating, failing to observe and deficient eye-sight. The first thing I was told on my Dorset driver awareness course? Speed really isn't an issue. That's exactly what they said right at the start! Why was I there? 57mph heading north at cooper dean 8 seconds short of the 70mph due to wanting to make room for a VERY overcrowded lane 1 to 'fill in' behind me - diamond pattern. Well that's what you get for using defensive driving techniques in Dorset. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 22

10:55am Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
[quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

11:05am Tue 29 Apr 14

Minty Fresh says...

rayc wrote:
I wonder why this article has been put on the website? It is not news it appears weekly in the Echo and is a direct copy of the info on Dorset roadsafe website. Perhaps the Echo is desperate to get some income from the speed camera debates such as this?
The B3074 Higher Blandford Road site is outside Corfe Hills School. There will never be any enforcement during school entry or egress times but when traffic is light. it is also interesting that Lower Blandford Road has a 40mph speed limit on it despite being much more built up.
It's all about the Echo receiving more "hits" and comments to it's website. They use these figures to set advertising costs. The higher the hits, the higher the potential revenue. Must be a slow news week, therefore lower "hits", hence posting up the Dor$et Road $a£e locations. A topic always guaranteed to get those readers fingers tapping!
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: I wonder why this article has been put on the website? It is not news it appears weekly in the Echo and is a direct copy of the info on Dorset roadsafe website. Perhaps the Echo is desperate to get some income from the speed camera debates such as this? The B3074 Higher Blandford Road site is outside Corfe Hills School. There will never be any enforcement during school entry or egress times but when traffic is light. it is also interesting that Lower Blandford Road has a 40mph speed limit on it despite being much more built up.[/p][/quote]It's all about the Echo receiving more "hits" and comments to it's website. They use these figures to set advertising costs. The higher the hits, the higher the potential revenue. Must be a slow news week, therefore lower "hits", hence posting up the Dor$et Road $a£e locations. A topic always guaranteed to get those readers fingers tapping! Minty Fresh
  • Score: 6

11:19am Tue 29 Apr 14

simnic says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
people say its a money making scheme...then don't give them a reason to take money from you by speeding...the speeding laws are there for a reason...'CAUGHT...N
O EXCUSES' says the signs at the side of the road. If someone is killed or maimed by speeding motorist then questiones are always asked...why were they speeding?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]people say its a money making scheme...then don't give them a reason to take money from you by speeding...the speeding laws are there for a reason...'CAUGHT...N O EXCUSES' says the signs at the side of the road. If someone is killed or maimed by speeding motorist then questiones are always asked...why were they speeding? simnic
  • Score: 0

11:22am Tue 29 Apr 14

ChrisAJ says...

And the echo doesn't state that these figures come from the Dorset speed camera awareness Facebook group because....
And the echo doesn't state that these figures come from the Dorset speed camera awareness Facebook group because.... ChrisAJ
  • Score: 3

11:24am Tue 29 Apr 14

Deblois says...

The article neglects to mention Ulwell Road in Swanage - I have had three tickets there, two within four minutes of each other. Many in the Dorset Road safety courses I have attended made the point that electronic speed signage helps drivers to reduce their speed and asked why Dorset does not erect more of them, especially in areas where there are many speed offences. It is difficult to understand why this is not a good idea - it would prevent the offence rather than punish it. It would be a pro-active step in making the roads safe rather than a reactive measure to speeding which has already occurred. There does appear to be a revenue motivation behind the Dorset strategy to punish speeding rather than investing in more electronic speed signage.
The article neglects to mention Ulwell Road in Swanage - I have had three tickets there, two within four minutes of each other. Many in the Dorset Road safety courses I have attended made the point that electronic speed signage helps drivers to reduce their speed and asked why Dorset does not erect more of them, especially in areas where there are many speed offences. It is difficult to understand why this is not a good idea - it would prevent the offence rather than punish it. It would be a pro-active step in making the roads safe rather than a reactive measure to speeding which has already occurred. There does appear to be a revenue motivation behind the Dorset strategy to punish speeding rather than investing in more electronic speed signage. Deblois
  • Score: 6

11:34am Tue 29 Apr 14

PokesdownMark says...

ChrisAJ wrote:
And the echo doesn't state that these figures come from the Dorset speed camera awareness Facebook group because....
... because they are available on the dorset road safety partnership's website? http://www.dorsetroa
dsafe.org.uk/enforce
ment/camera-sites/mo
bile-camera-sites maybe?
[quote][p][bold]ChrisAJ[/bold] wrote: And the echo doesn't state that these figures come from the Dorset speed camera awareness Facebook group because....[/p][/quote]... because they are available on the dorset road safety partnership's website? http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/enforce ment/camera-sites/mo bile-camera-sites maybe? PokesdownMark
  • Score: 1

11:42am Tue 29 Apr 14

redir7 says...

81mph in a 50mph. Ok hands up I did it.
But shouldn't Dorset Road Safe Camera Van be parked legally ?????

We all know where
Tower Park towards Fire Station.

Oh well here comes a ban and loads of ££££££'s legally stolen from me ,
by the worst offenders of all.
81mph in a 50mph. Ok hands up I did it. But shouldn't Dorset Road Safe Camera Van be parked legally ????? We all know where Tower Park towards Fire Station. Oh well here comes a ban and loads of ££££££'s legally stolen from me , by the worst offenders of all. redir7
  • Score: -1

12:07pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Bournefre says...

smhinto wrote:
A most effective way of reducing speeding adjacent to schools is to introduce road-humps or speed retarders. Drivers naturally slow down when negotiating these things and I am sure that they are far cheaper to maintain and operate than a speed camera.
.
But as we all know speed-humps or speed retarders do not generate any cash do they ??!! Typical.
.
I am also a firm believer that it is not speed that kills, it is in fact a lack of education and common sense.
Had you considered why you think speed should be reduced adjacent to schools? It's very rare that a child should wander out of a school and into the road during the day, in fact they are generally dropped off in the morning then all come flooding out together in the afternoon, midweek during term time, and even then they are supervised.
Any other time the road is just a road; a child is just as likely to get run over outside a school as they are outside their own home, but nobody calls for traffic calming outside every child's home.
[quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: A most effective way of reducing speeding adjacent to schools is to introduce road-humps or speed retarders. Drivers naturally slow down when negotiating these things and I am sure that they are far cheaper to maintain and operate than a speed camera. . But as we all know speed-humps or speed retarders do not generate any cash do they ??!! Typical. . I am also a firm believer that it is not speed that kills, it is in fact a lack of education and common sense.[/p][/quote]Had you considered why you think speed should be reduced adjacent to schools? It's very rare that a child should wander out of a school and into the road during the day, in fact they are generally dropped off in the morning then all come flooding out together in the afternoon, midweek during term time, and even then they are supervised. Any other time the road is just a road; a child is just as likely to get run over outside a school as they are outside their own home, but nobody calls for traffic calming outside every child's home. Bournefre
  • Score: 6

12:44pm Tue 29 Apr 14

JackJohnson says...

Bournefre wrote:
smhinto wrote:
A most effective way of reducing speeding adjacent to schools is to introduce road-humps or speed retarders. Drivers naturally slow down when negotiating these things and I am sure that they are far cheaper to maintain and operate than a speed camera.
.
But as we all know speed-humps or speed retarders do not generate any cash do they ??!! Typical.
.
I am also a firm believer that it is not speed that kills, it is in fact a lack of education and common sense.
Had you considered why you think speed should be reduced adjacent to schools? It's very rare that a child should wander out of a school and into the road during the day, in fact they are generally dropped off in the morning then all come flooding out together in the afternoon, midweek during term time, and even then they are supervised.
Any other time the road is just a road; a child is just as likely to get run over outside a school as they are outside their own home, but nobody calls for traffic calming outside every child's home.
Actually there's a lot going on to try to get 20mph zones introduced in towns.

The last house I lived in (in Solihull) was in a 20mph zone, but most people either didn't know or just ignored it. Even the local hobby bobby wasn't aware of it until I pointed the sign out to her. It was on a street with primary and secondary schools (at the far end from where we lived), and also used as a rat-run to avoid having to drive through a congested part of town. As far as I'm aware the 20mph limit was never enforced.
[quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smhinto[/bold] wrote: A most effective way of reducing speeding adjacent to schools is to introduce road-humps or speed retarders. Drivers naturally slow down when negotiating these things and I am sure that they are far cheaper to maintain and operate than a speed camera. . But as we all know speed-humps or speed retarders do not generate any cash do they ??!! Typical. . I am also a firm believer that it is not speed that kills, it is in fact a lack of education and common sense.[/p][/quote]Had you considered why you think speed should be reduced adjacent to schools? It's very rare that a child should wander out of a school and into the road during the day, in fact they are generally dropped off in the morning then all come flooding out together in the afternoon, midweek during term time, and even then they are supervised. Any other time the road is just a road; a child is just as likely to get run over outside a school as they are outside their own home, but nobody calls for traffic calming outside every child's home.[/p][/quote]Actually there's a lot going on to try to get 20mph zones introduced in towns. The last house I lived in (in Solihull) was in a 20mph zone, but most people either didn't know or just ignored it. Even the local hobby bobby wasn't aware of it until I pointed the sign out to her. It was on a street with primary and secondary schools (at the far end from where we lived), and also used as a rat-run to avoid having to drive through a congested part of town. As far as I'm aware the 20mph limit was never enforced. JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

12:46pm Tue 29 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

MotorbikeSam wrote:
I see Dorset Speed is still spouting garbage as usual ...
the speed cameras can go where ever they like as far as me and every other law abiding road user are concerned. and the more the better....
And I am waiting for the day Dorset Speed to get a knock on the door as it is illegal to incite law breaking .
Its great for a driver to say "I know best" when it come to speed.
all road deaths are caused by speed. It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger, at 10 mph it is almost impossible to hurt some one at 30 the danger increases at 60 it is positively dangerous, as the powers that be know the limit has to be set at a sensible speed, that Mr D Speed is what those big round signs with a number in them so do as society has decided and stick to the limit your licence will love for it !!
What a really odd (being polite) statement. 'All road deaths are caused by speed'.

What does that even mean?

All shootings are caused by guns?

By the by, what percentage of road accidents had speeding as a major contributory factor?

What do you think? (seeing as you deal in absolutes)
[quote][p][bold]MotorbikeSam[/bold] wrote: I see Dorset Speed is still spouting garbage as usual ... the speed cameras can go where ever they like as far as me and every other law abiding road user are concerned. and the more the better.... And I am waiting for the day Dorset Speed to get a knock on the door as it is illegal to incite law breaking . Its great for a driver to say "I know best" when it come to speed. all road deaths are caused by speed. It is an indisputable fact that a stationary car is danger, at 10 mph it is almost impossible to hurt some one at 30 the danger increases at 60 it is positively dangerous, as the powers that be know the limit has to be set at a sensible speed, that Mr D Speed is what those big round signs with a number in them so do as society has decided and stick to the limit your licence will love for it !![/p][/quote]What a really odd (being polite) statement. 'All road deaths are caused by speed'. What does that even mean? All shootings are caused by guns? By the by, what percentage of road accidents had speeding as a major contributory factor? What do you think? (seeing as you deal in absolutes) scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

12:48pm Tue 29 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

Redgolfer wrote:
Can I add a few more that we come across as night time taxi drivers, Wimborne Rd between Richmond Hill and Cemetery Junction on opposite side to Gatso camera, Lindsey Road by Wilderton Road, Lansdown Road by Flyover, Poole Road between Westbourne and Queens Road.
And outside Christchurch Police Station at around 8am
[quote][p][bold]Redgolfer[/bold] wrote: Can I add a few more that we come across as night time taxi drivers, Wimborne Rd between Richmond Hill and Cemetery Junction on opposite side to Gatso camera, Lindsey Road by Wilderton Road, Lansdown Road by Flyover, Poole Road between Westbourne and Queens Road.[/p][/quote]And outside Christchurch Police Station at around 8am scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

12:58pm Tue 29 Apr 14

scrumpyjack says...

simnic wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
people say its a money making scheme...then don't give them a reason to take money from you by speeding...the speeding laws are there for a reason...'CAUGHT...N

O EXCUSES' says the signs at the side of the road. If someone is killed or maimed by speeding motorist then questiones are always asked...why were they speeding?
As above, and how often does this happen in reality?

Which is the area that needs most budget and attention, you seem to agree it's speeding by your tone and comments?
[quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]people say its a money making scheme...then don't give them a reason to take money from you by speeding...the speeding laws are there for a reason...'CAUGHT...N O EXCUSES' says the signs at the side of the road. If someone is killed or maimed by speeding motorist then questiones are always asked...why were they speeding?[/p][/quote]As above, and how often does this happen in reality? Which is the area that needs most budget and attention, you seem to agree it's speeding by your tone and comments? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

12:59pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

"Speed is at the core of the road safety problem. In fact, speed is involved in all accidents: no speed, no accidents. In around 30% of the fatal accidents speed is an essential contributory factor. Firstly, speed affects the risk of being involved in an accident. At a higher speed, it is more difficult to react in time and prevent an accident. Secondly, speed affects the injury consequences of an accident. At a higher (impact) speed, more energy is released when colliding with another vehicle, road user or obstacle. Part of this energy will need to be absorbed by the vulnerable human body. Very strong relationships have been established between
speed and accident risk and severity.

Excess speed and inappropriate speed are very common. Speed limits provide information to the drivers about the safe speed to travel in average conditions. Exceeding the speed limits is very common. Typically, 40 to 50% of the drivers travel faster than the speed limit. Typically, 10 to 20% exceed the speed limit by more than10 km/h. In addition, drivers adapt their speed insufficiently to local and temporary conditions related to traffic and weather.

They often choose a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. Speed choice is related to the drivers' motives, attitudes, risk perception and risk acceptance. Furthermore, speed choice is affected by characteristics of the road and the road environment and by characteristics of the vehicle".

Not my words but taken direct from the European Road Safety Observatory.
"Speed is at the core of the road safety problem. In fact, speed is involved in all accidents: no speed, no accidents. In around 30% of the fatal accidents speed is an essential contributory factor. Firstly, speed affects the risk of being involved in an accident. At a higher speed, it is more difficult to react in time and prevent an accident. Secondly, speed affects the injury consequences of an accident. At a higher (impact) speed, more energy is released when colliding with another vehicle, road user or obstacle. Part of this energy will need to be absorbed by the vulnerable human body. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk and severity. Excess speed and inappropriate speed are very common. Speed limits provide information to the drivers about the safe speed to travel in average conditions. Exceeding the speed limits is very common. Typically, 40 to 50% of the drivers travel faster than the speed limit. Typically, 10 to 20% exceed the speed limit by more than10 km/h. In addition, drivers adapt their speed insufficiently to local and temporary conditions related to traffic and weather. They often choose a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. Speed choice is related to the drivers' motives, attitudes, risk perception and risk acceptance. Furthermore, speed choice is affected by characteristics of the road and the road environment and by characteristics of the vehicle". Not my words but taken direct from the European Road Safety Observatory. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

1:29pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar.

Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads. tbpoole
  • Score: -6

1:32pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
"Speed is at the core of the road safety problem. In fact, speed is involved in all accidents: no speed, no accidents. In around 30% of the fatal accidents speed is an essential contributory factor. Firstly, speed affects the risk of being involved in an accident. At a higher speed, it is more difficult to react in time and prevent an accident. Secondly, speed affects the injury consequences of an accident. At a higher (impact) speed, more energy is released when colliding with another vehicle, road user or obstacle. Part of this energy will need to be absorbed by the vulnerable human body. Very strong relationships have been established between
speed and accident risk and severity.

Excess speed and inappropriate speed are very common. Speed limits provide information to the drivers about the safe speed to travel in average conditions. Exceeding the speed limits is very common. Typically, 40 to 50% of the drivers travel faster than the speed limit. Typically, 10 to 20% exceed the speed limit by more than10 km/h. In addition, drivers adapt their speed insufficiently to local and temporary conditions related to traffic and weather.

They often choose a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. Speed choice is related to the drivers' motives, attitudes, risk perception and risk acceptance. Furthermore, speed choice is affected by characteristics of the road and the road environment and by characteristics of the vehicle".

Not my words but taken direct from the European Road Safety Observatory.
Yes, but you don't solve those problems by setting limits 20% below average speeds, sitting in a van and taking £millions of those who exceed them by tiny margins
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: "Speed is at the core of the road safety problem. In fact, speed is involved in all accidents: no speed, no accidents. In around 30% of the fatal accidents speed is an essential contributory factor. Firstly, speed affects the risk of being involved in an accident. At a higher speed, it is more difficult to react in time and prevent an accident. Secondly, speed affects the injury consequences of an accident. At a higher (impact) speed, more energy is released when colliding with another vehicle, road user or obstacle. Part of this energy will need to be absorbed by the vulnerable human body. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk and severity. Excess speed and inappropriate speed are very common. Speed limits provide information to the drivers about the safe speed to travel in average conditions. Exceeding the speed limits is very common. Typically, 40 to 50% of the drivers travel faster than the speed limit. Typically, 10 to 20% exceed the speed limit by more than10 km/h. In addition, drivers adapt their speed insufficiently to local and temporary conditions related to traffic and weather. They often choose a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. Speed choice is related to the drivers' motives, attitudes, risk perception and risk acceptance. Furthermore, speed choice is affected by characteristics of the road and the road environment and by characteristics of the vehicle". Not my words but taken direct from the European Road Safety Observatory.[/p][/quote]Yes, but you don't solve those problems by setting limits 20% below average speeds, sitting in a van and taking £millions of those who exceed them by tiny margins dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

1:34pm Tue 29 Apr 14

canfordcherry says...

redir7 wrote:
81mph in a 50mph. Ok hands up I did it.
But shouldn't Dorset Road Safe Camera Van be parked legally ?????

We all know where
Tower Park towards Fire Station.

Oh well here comes a ban and loads of ££££££'s legally stolen from me ,
by the worst offenders of all.
You deserve any fine coming to you for such an act of stupidity.
[quote][p][bold]redir7[/bold] wrote: 81mph in a 50mph. Ok hands up I did it. But shouldn't Dorset Road Safe Camera Van be parked legally ????? We all know where Tower Park towards Fire Station. Oh well here comes a ban and loads of ££££££'s legally stolen from me , by the worst offenders of all.[/p][/quote]You deserve any fine coming to you for such an act of stupidity. canfordcherry
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar.

Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

1:40pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Teddy 1 says...

The standard of driving is really poor generally. Why do people keep trying to turn right on the fleetsbridge roundabout on the middle lane...the road markings are clear. Yesterday at c5pm a silver beaten up mercedes car driver nearly ran me off the road as HE was in the wrong lane...and he had a nasty dose of road rage.. Just hope he kills himself and doesnt take innocent people out in his mission. That or he will end up having a heart attack!
The standard of driving is really poor generally. Why do people keep trying to turn right on the fleetsbridge roundabout on the middle lane...the road markings are clear. Yesterday at c5pm a silver beaten up mercedes car driver nearly ran me off the road as HE was in the wrong lane...and he had a nasty dose of road rage.. Just hope he kills himself and doesnt take innocent people out in his mission. That or he will end up having a heart attack! Teddy 1
  • Score: 7

1:51pm Tue 29 Apr 14

PokesdownMark says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar.

Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
But he isn't the only one with concerns. And from his previous comments, if the safety partnership decided to patrol from a moving car, in lane one, shooting video of passing cars and prosecuting those drivers that are consistently tailgating... I'm pretty sure that he'd support that action? I know I would.

His key point seems to be that operational priorities are being distorted by very high revenue income. I see evidence of that in the dorset safety partnerships own figures. Cooper Dean is clearly their cash cow and is milked frequently. Other locations with higher recorded accident/injury number have fewer notices of intended prosecutions. Areas with a measured high average speed (eg Littledown Ave is 37mph) get least number of NIPs and actually have the lowest actual recorded accident/injury figures. None of which supports their core messages or activity. In fact quite the reverse. They are not focusing where previous collisions have occurred. They are not focusing on residential areas where speeding has been measured to happen. They are focusing on the locations where artificially low limits catch out huge numbers of ordinary safe motorist. That is not effective safety policy. That is effective financial policy.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.[/p][/quote]But he isn't the only one with concerns. And from his previous comments, if the safety partnership decided to patrol from a moving car, in lane one, shooting video of passing cars and prosecuting those drivers that are consistently tailgating... I'm pretty sure that he'd support that action? I know I would. His key point seems to be that operational priorities are being distorted by very high revenue income. I see evidence of that in the dorset safety partnerships own figures. Cooper Dean is clearly their cash cow and is milked frequently. Other locations with higher recorded accident/injury number have fewer notices of intended prosecutions. Areas with a measured high average speed (eg Littledown Ave is 37mph) get least number of NIPs and actually have the lowest actual recorded accident/injury figures. None of which supports their core messages or activity. In fact quite the reverse. They are not focusing where previous collisions have occurred. They are not focusing on residential areas where speeding has been measured to happen. They are focusing on the locations where artificially low limits catch out huge numbers of ordinary safe motorist. That is not effective safety policy. That is effective financial policy. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 8

2:01pm Tue 29 Apr 14

PUZZLED ONE says...

I checked, got an email from Dorset Road Safe which said they have not supplied lists of camera locations to the Dorset Echo for several years (and does not have to do so). The Echo has been informed on several occasions that their list is not correct.

Usual standard of 'journalism' from the Echo which we have come to expect then?
I checked, got an email from Dorset Road Safe which said they have not supplied lists of camera locations to the Dorset Echo for several years (and does not have to do so). The Echo has been informed on several occasions that their list is not correct. Usual standard of 'journalism' from the Echo which we have come to expect then? PUZZLED ONE
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Tue 29 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

muscliffman wrote:
Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all!
Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all![/p][/quote]Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR? breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

2:32pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all!
Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?
I don't think he's saying that. I think he said what he said.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all![/p][/quote]Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?[/p][/quote]I don't think he's saying that. I think he said what he said. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

3:03pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rayc says...

breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all!
Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?
What do you mean by Police Vehicles?
My guess is that some Police vehicles will, the majority will not.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all![/p][/quote]Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?[/p][/quote]What do you mean by Police Vehicles? My guess is that some Police vehicles will, the majority will not. rayc
  • Score: 3

3:10pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rayc says...

PUZZLED ONE wrote:
I checked, got an email from Dorset Road Safe which said they have not supplied lists of camera locations to the Dorset Echo for several years (and does not have to do so). The Echo has been informed on several occasions that their list is not correct.

Usual standard of 'journalism' from the Echo which we have come to expect then?
Is the honeymoon period between the Echo and Dorset Roadsafe over? The Echo were for years been an unquestioning open mouth piece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda. What is required is more investigative journalism to discover if the Dorset Roadsafe claims of road safety statistic improvements stands up to scrutiny. Why were the KSI statistics for 2013 similar to those for the early 2000's? Has the No Excuse campaign actually produced anything positive other than a regular income that the Police use to fund Dorset Roadsafe?
I doubt we will we ever know the truth as those with the vested interests compile the statistics.
[quote][p][bold]PUZZLED ONE[/bold] wrote: I checked, got an email from Dorset Road Safe which said they have not supplied lists of camera locations to the Dorset Echo for several years (and does not have to do so). The Echo has been informed on several occasions that their list is not correct. Usual standard of 'journalism' from the Echo which we have come to expect then?[/p][/quote]Is the honeymoon period between the Echo and Dorset Roadsafe over? The Echo were for years been an unquestioning open mouth piece for Dorset Roadsafe propaganda. What is required is more investigative journalism to discover if the Dorset Roadsafe claims of road safety statistic improvements stands up to scrutiny. Why were the KSI statistics for 2013 similar to those for the early 2000's? Has the No Excuse campaign actually produced anything positive other than a regular income that the Police use to fund Dorset Roadsafe? I doubt we will we ever know the truth as those with the vested interests compile the statistics. rayc
  • Score: 2

3:48pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote: "Speed is at the core of the road safety problem. In fact, speed is involved in all accidents: no speed, no accidents. In around 30% of the fatal accidents speed is an essential contributory factor. Firstly, speed affects the risk of being involved in an accident. At a higher speed, it is more difficult to react in time and prevent an accident. Secondly, speed affects the injury consequences of an accident. At a higher (impact) speed, more energy is released when colliding with another vehicle, road user or obstacle. Part of this energy will need to be absorbed by the vulnerable human body. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk and severity. Excess speed and inappropriate speed are very common. Speed limits provide information to the drivers about the safe speed to travel in average conditions. Exceeding the speed limits is very common. Typically, 40 to 50% of the drivers travel faster than the speed limit. Typically, 10 to 20% exceed the speed limit by more than10 km/h. In addition, drivers adapt their speed insufficiently to local and temporary conditions related to traffic and weather. They often choose a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. Speed choice is related to the drivers' motives, attitudes, risk perception and risk acceptance. Furthermore, speed choice is affected by characteristics of the road and the road environment and by characteristics of the vehicle". Not my words but taken direct from the European Road Safety Observatory.
Yes, but you don't solve those problems by setting limits 20% below average speeds, sitting in a van and taking £millions of those who exceed them by tiny margins
Never let a few exaggerations get in the way of the truth.......I don't recall 14% over a limit ever being called a 'tiny margin'.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: "Speed is at the core of the road safety problem. In fact, speed is involved in all accidents: no speed, no accidents. In around 30% of the fatal accidents speed is an essential contributory factor. Firstly, speed affects the risk of being involved in an accident. At a higher speed, it is more difficult to react in time and prevent an accident. Secondly, speed affects the injury consequences of an accident. At a higher (impact) speed, more energy is released when colliding with another vehicle, road user or obstacle. Part of this energy will need to be absorbed by the vulnerable human body. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk and severity. Excess speed and inappropriate speed are very common. Speed limits provide information to the drivers about the safe speed to travel in average conditions. Exceeding the speed limits is very common. Typically, 40 to 50% of the drivers travel faster than the speed limit. Typically, 10 to 20% exceed the speed limit by more than10 km/h. In addition, drivers adapt their speed insufficiently to local and temporary conditions related to traffic and weather. They often choose a speed that is inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. Speed choice is related to the drivers' motives, attitudes, risk perception and risk acceptance. Furthermore, speed choice is affected by characteristics of the road and the road environment and by characteristics of the vehicle". Not my words but taken direct from the European Road Safety Observatory.[/p][/quote]Yes, but you don't solve those problems by setting limits 20% below average speeds, sitting in a van and taking £millions of those who exceed them by tiny margins[/p][/quote]Never let a few exaggerations get in the way of the truth.......I don't recall 14% over a limit ever being called a 'tiny margin'. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
But he isn't the only one with concerns. And from his previous comments, if the safety partnership decided to patrol from a moving car, in lane one, shooting video of passing cars and prosecuting those drivers that are consistently tailgating... I'm pretty sure that he'd support that action? I know I would. His key point seems to be that operational priorities are being distorted by very high revenue income. I see evidence of that in the dorset safety partnerships own figures. Cooper Dean is clearly their cash cow and is milked frequently. Other locations with higher recorded accident/injury number have fewer notices of intended prosecutions. Areas with a measured high average speed (eg Littledown Ave is 37mph) get least number of NIPs and actually have the lowest actual recorded accident/injury figures. None of which supports their core messages or activity. In fact quite the reverse. They are not focusing where previous collisions have occurred. They are not focusing on residential areas where speeding has been measured to happen. They are focusing on the locations where artificially low limits catch out huge numbers of ordinary safe motorist. That is not effective safety policy. That is effective financial policy.
A lot of people have concerns but surely this is not the sort of activity to be carried out by consensus or by seeking approval of a minority activist?
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.[/p][/quote]But he isn't the only one with concerns. And from his previous comments, if the safety partnership decided to patrol from a moving car, in lane one, shooting video of passing cars and prosecuting those drivers that are consistently tailgating... I'm pretty sure that he'd support that action? I know I would. His key point seems to be that operational priorities are being distorted by very high revenue income. I see evidence of that in the dorset safety partnerships own figures. Cooper Dean is clearly their cash cow and is milked frequently. Other locations with higher recorded accident/injury number have fewer notices of intended prosecutions. Areas with a measured high average speed (eg Littledown Ave is 37mph) get least number of NIPs and actually have the lowest actual recorded accident/injury figures. None of which supports their core messages or activity. In fact quite the reverse. They are not focusing where previous collisions have occurred. They are not focusing on residential areas where speeding has been measured to happen. They are focusing on the locations where artificially low limits catch out huge numbers of ordinary safe motorist. That is not effective safety policy. That is effective financial policy.[/p][/quote]A lot of people have concerns but surely this is not the sort of activity to be carried out by consensus or by seeking approval of a minority activist? tbpoole
  • Score: -3

3:54pm Tue 29 Apr 14

simnic says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
simnic wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
people say its a money making scheme...then don't give them a reason to take money from you by speeding...the speeding laws are there for a reason...'CAUGHT...N O EXCUSES' says the signs at the side of the road. If someone is killed or maimed by speeding motorist then questiones are always asked...why were they speeding?
As above, and how often does this happen in reality? Which is the area that needs most budget and attention, you seem to agree it's speeding by your tone and comments?
referring to who? if it's me then no i dont condone speeding at all.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]people say its a money making scheme...then don't give them a reason to take money from you by speeding...the speeding laws are there for a reason...'CAUGHT...N O EXCUSES' says the signs at the side of the road. If someone is killed or maimed by speeding motorist then questiones are always asked...why were they speeding?[/p][/quote]As above, and how often does this happen in reality? Which is the area that needs most budget and attention, you seem to agree it's speeding by your tone and comments?[/p][/quote]referring to who? if it's me then no i dont condone speeding at all. simnic
  • Score: -2

4:00pm Tue 29 Apr 14

simnic says...

canfordcherry wrote:
redir7 wrote: 81mph in a 50mph. Ok hands up I did it. But shouldn't Dorset Road Safe Camera Van be parked legally ????? We all know where Tower Park towards Fire Station. Oh well here comes a ban and loads of ££££££'s legally stolen from me , by the worst offenders of all.
You deserve any fine coming to you for such an act of stupidity.
a huge fine and if i remember rightly if you are 20% over the limit its a ban...no more dangerous driving for you sonny Jim!
[quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redir7[/bold] wrote: 81mph in a 50mph. Ok hands up I did it. But shouldn't Dorset Road Safe Camera Van be parked legally ????? We all know where Tower Park towards Fire Station. Oh well here comes a ban and loads of ££££££'s legally stolen from me , by the worst offenders of all.[/p][/quote]You deserve any fine coming to you for such an act of stupidity.[/p][/quote]a huge fine and if i remember rightly if you are 20% over the limit its a ban...no more dangerous driving for you sonny Jim! simnic
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Tue 29 Apr 14

adspacebroker says...

Will we see a police officer with a speed detection device on Little Orchard, Poole tonight monitoring the speed of those minority of idiotic motorbikers that still don't get it despite the number of deaths in this area. It is a 30mph speed limit with pedestrians either side of the road and sometimes in the road working to or from an event on the Quay. If this was ll about safety then they would be there every week doing the right thing....but they are not!!
Will we see a police officer with a speed detection device on Little Orchard, Poole tonight monitoring the speed of those minority of idiotic motorbikers that still don't get it despite the number of deaths in this area. It is a 30mph speed limit with pedestrians either side of the road and sometimes in the road working to or from an event on the Quay. If this was ll about safety then they would be there every week doing the right thing....but they are not!! adspacebroker
  • Score: 1

4:18pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

adspacebroker wrote:
Will we see a police officer with a speed detection device on Little Orchard, Poole tonight monitoring the speed of those minority of idiotic motorbikers that still don't get it despite the number of deaths in this area. It is a 30mph speed limit with pedestrians either side of the road and sometimes in the road working to or from an event on the Quay. If this was ll about safety then they would be there every week doing the right thing....but they are not!!
Actually the Quay is 20mph....shows how much notice drivers take. Plus you may be confusing noise with speed. A bike making a lot of noise isn't automatically speeding.
[quote][p][bold]adspacebroker[/bold] wrote: Will we see a police officer with a speed detection device on Little Orchard, Poole tonight monitoring the speed of those minority of idiotic motorbikers that still don't get it despite the number of deaths in this area. It is a 30mph speed limit with pedestrians either side of the road and sometimes in the road working to or from an event on the Quay. If this was ll about safety then they would be there every week doing the right thing....but they are not!![/p][/quote]Actually the Quay is 20mph....shows how much notice drivers take. Plus you may be confusing noise with speed. A bike making a lot of noise isn't automatically speeding. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

4:23pm Tue 29 Apr 14

chris100 says...

When they park up at littledown ave they park in a dip on double yellow lines
That's how they caught me !!!!!!!
When they park up at littledown ave they park in a dip on double yellow lines That's how they caught me !!!!!!! chris100
  • Score: 1

4:30pm Tue 29 Apr 14

The Liberal says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money.

I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so.

And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
I'm not saying I agree with their tactics – I'd much rather see them working at random, undisclosed locations. And I realise that the regulations are stipulated by government, but surely the aim of the latter was to prevent allegations of it being a money-maker?
 
I thought all the fines went to a central govt fund anyhow? I take it that this doesn't apply to the money paid for courses, then?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]I'm not saying I agree with their tactics – I'd much rather see them working at random, undisclosed locations. And I realise that the regulations are stipulated by government, but surely the aim of the latter was to prevent allegations of it being a money-maker?   I thought all the fines went to a central govt fund anyhow? I take it that this doesn't apply to the money paid for courses, then? The Liberal
  • Score: 1

4:58pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

Chris@Bmouth wrote:
Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....
So what? Speeding kills and not just outside schools and not just pedestrians!
[quote][p][bold]Chris@Bmouth[/bold] wrote: Vast majority of these not outside schools or other high pedestrian areas. Just goes to show....[/p][/quote]So what? Speeding kills and not just outside schools and not just pedestrians! HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: -6

5:20pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money.

I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so.

And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
I'm not saying I agree with their tactics – I'd much rather see them working at random, undisclosed locations. And I realise that the regulations are stipulated by government, but surely the aim of the latter was to prevent allegations of it being a money-maker?
 
I thought all the fines went to a central govt fund anyhow? I take it that this doesn't apply to the money paid for courses, then?
Actually, the government have washed their hands of speed cameras, and pass the buck, saying that road safety is for local authorities to deal with.

It takes more than painting something yellow for it not to be a money spinner.

Yes, fines go to government, Dorset Police keep 100% of the course money - and the criteria has been widened such that the vast majority of "offences" result in course offers, and even further, uniquely for Dorset, you can take the course every year. Does that mean that Dorset Police think the course is so useless it is effective only for one year, or do they not give a stuff about effectiveness and they just want drivers on it as often as they can get away with at £110 a time (again uniquely for Dorset, the highest course fee).
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]I'm not saying I agree with their tactics – I'd much rather see them working at random, undisclosed locations. And I realise that the regulations are stipulated by government, but surely the aim of the latter was to prevent allegations of it being a money-maker?   I thought all the fines went to a central govt fund anyhow? I take it that this doesn't apply to the money paid for courses, then?[/p][/quote]Actually, the government have washed their hands of speed cameras, and pass the buck, saying that road safety is for local authorities to deal with. It takes more than painting something yellow for it not to be a money spinner. Yes, fines go to government, Dorset Police keep 100% of the course money - and the criteria has been widened such that the vast majority of "offences" result in course offers, and even further, uniquely for Dorset, you can take the course every year. Does that mean that Dorset Police think the course is so useless it is effective only for one year, or do they not give a stuff about effectiveness and they just want drivers on it as often as they can get away with at £110 a time (again uniquely for Dorset, the highest course fee). dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

5:39pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Rich© says...

joetheman wrote:
For F Sake, i suppose the echo will give the addresses of people on holiday next so that they can be robbed, it just baffles me when the echo have anti speeding, drink driving , parking,seatbelt and mobile phone campains,and then warn motorists where the deterants are,
I'll expect one of many magical internet down-votes, but hey ho bring 'em on !!! But I don't know why you've got so many down-votes for what you put, I'm in total agreement with you , why advertise the fact where the cameras, seat-belt checks ect are, if your doing nothing illegal, you have nothing to worry about , thus no need to know where they are.

why do most get upset about the cameras making money, how about this, hard to imagine I know, but what about if no one at all broke the speed limit, the cameras wouldn't make money anymore, simple really.
[quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: For F Sake, i suppose the echo will give the addresses of people on holiday next so that they can be robbed, it just baffles me when the echo have anti speeding, drink driving , parking,seatbelt and mobile phone campains,and then warn motorists where the deterants are,[/p][/quote]I'll expect one of many magical internet down-votes, but hey ho bring 'em on !!! But I don't know why you've got so many down-votes for what you put, I'm in total agreement with you , why advertise the fact where the cameras, seat-belt checks ect are, if your doing nothing illegal, you have nothing to worry about , thus no need to know where they are. why do most get upset about the cameras making money, how about this, hard to imagine I know, but what about if no one at all broke the speed limit, the cameras wouldn't make money anymore, simple really. Rich©
  • Score: -1

6:25pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rich© wrote:
joetheman wrote:
For F Sake, i suppose the echo will give the addresses of people on holiday next so that they can be robbed, it just baffles me when the echo have anti speeding, drink driving , parking,seatbelt and mobile phone campains,and then warn motorists where the deterants are,
I'll expect one of many magical internet down-votes, but hey ho bring 'em on !!! But I don't know why you've got so many down-votes for what you put, I'm in total agreement with you , why advertise the fact where the cameras, seat-belt checks ect are, if your doing nothing illegal, you have nothing to worry about , thus no need to know where they are.

why do most get upset about the cameras making money, how about this, hard to imagine I know, but what about if no one at all broke the speed limit, the cameras wouldn't make money anymore, simple really.
And if the police were concentrating on road safety, not making money, fewer people would be killed and seriously injured which is what they are meant to be doing and is much more important.
[quote][p][bold]Rich©[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: For F Sake, i suppose the echo will give the addresses of people on holiday next so that they can be robbed, it just baffles me when the echo have anti speeding, drink driving , parking,seatbelt and mobile phone campains,and then warn motorists where the deterants are,[/p][/quote]I'll expect one of many magical internet down-votes, but hey ho bring 'em on !!! But I don't know why you've got so many down-votes for what you put, I'm in total agreement with you , why advertise the fact where the cameras, seat-belt checks ect are, if your doing nothing illegal, you have nothing to worry about , thus no need to know where they are. why do most get upset about the cameras making money, how about this, hard to imagine I know, but what about if no one at all broke the speed limit, the cameras wouldn't make money anymore, simple really.[/p][/quote]And if the police were concentrating on road safety, not making money, fewer people would be killed and seriously injured which is what they are meant to be doing and is much more important. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

6:44pm Tue 29 Apr 14

poolebabe says...

The driving habits of some are shocking. It's not just about speeding. They should be targeting dangerous drivers. Tail gating, using filter lanes just to over take, jumping red lights and blocking exits, using the wrong lane on a roundabout to over take, to name a few things. Why don't the selfish drivers who put others at risk for the sake of getting one car ahead ever get caught?? Why does it just have to be speeding, no seat belts and mobile phone use?
The driving habits of some are shocking. It's not just about speeding. They should be targeting dangerous drivers. Tail gating, using filter lanes just to over take, jumping red lights and blocking exits, using the wrong lane on a roundabout to over take, to name a few things. Why don't the selfish drivers who put others at risk for the sake of getting one car ahead ever get caught?? Why does it just have to be speeding, no seat belts and mobile phone use? poolebabe
  • Score: 5

7:24pm Tue 29 Apr 14

sivvy says...

Let me share experience rather than opinion. I was caught speeding 5 years ago at Osmington. I was doing 50 in a 50 limit when I slowed down as I crossed the boundry into the village and as I crossed the boundry into the 30mph limit I was breaking to 30. No houses or people for another 500 yards. Unfortunatly for me a van parked at the lay-by with its chevrons away from my view clocked me at 37 as I was slowing down for the village.
I was furious with the police and was allowed a diologue by letter with the inspector concerned for dorset safety. he accepted my remarks that the van was sneaky, that I was breaking as I crossed the boundry and that my wife never lets me speed in populated areas.
n However he pointed out that it was my responsibility to be down to the appropriate speed in good time as sighned by the mph notices. He did not recind my fine or my 3 points. BUT--- I have been very aware not to make that mistake again. I want to keep my money in my pocket and my points on my D/L. It cost me £60 quid and a dented pride ,but it worked for them.

By the way , the easiest way to get caught out on that one is --- hang on,they don't have cameras there yet so I better no plant the idea in there heads. Cheers, Peter.
Let me share experience rather than opinion. I was caught speeding 5 years ago at Osmington. I was doing 50 in a 50 limit when I slowed down as I crossed the boundry into the village and as I crossed the boundry into the 30mph limit I was breaking to 30. No houses or people for another 500 yards. Unfortunatly for me a van parked at the lay-by with its chevrons away from my view clocked me at 37 as I was slowing down for the village. I was furious with the police and was allowed a diologue by letter with the inspector concerned for dorset safety. he accepted my remarks that the van was sneaky, that I was breaking as I crossed the boundry and that my wife never lets me speed in populated areas. n However he pointed out that it was my responsibility to be down to the appropriate speed in good time as sighned by the mph notices. He did not recind my fine or my 3 points. BUT--- I have been very aware not to make that mistake again. I want to keep my money in my pocket and my points on my D/L. It cost me £60 quid and a dented pride ,but it worked for them. By the way , the easiest way to get caught out on that one is --- hang on,they don't have cameras there yet so I better no plant the idea in there heads. Cheers, Peter. sivvy
  • Score: 1

7:28pm Tue 29 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter. breamoreboy
  • Score: -3

7:40pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen. tbpoole
  • Score: -4

7:45pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote:
I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money.

I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so.

And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
I'm not saying I agree with their tactics – I'd much rather see them working at random, undisclosed locations. And I realise that the regulations are stipulated by government, but surely the aim of the latter was to prevent allegations of it being a money-maker?
 
I thought all the fines went to a central govt fund anyhow? I take it that this doesn't apply to the money paid for courses, then?
Actually, the government have washed their hands of speed cameras, and pass the buck, saying that road safety is for local authorities to deal with.

It takes more than painting something yellow for it not to be a money spinner.

Yes, fines go to government, Dorset Police keep 100% of the course money - and the criteria has been widened such that the vast majority of "offences" result in course offers, and even further, uniquely for Dorset, you can take the course every year. Does that mean that Dorset Police think the course is so useless it is effective only for one year, or do they not give a stuff about effectiveness and they just want drivers on it as often as they can get away with at £110 a time (again uniquely for Dorset, the highest course fee).
It's only £10 more than the fixed penalty notice and you don't get the three penalty points on your licence. I would hardly call that daylight robbery.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]I'm not saying I agree with their tactics – I'd much rather see them working at random, undisclosed locations. And I realise that the regulations are stipulated by government, but surely the aim of the latter was to prevent allegations of it being a money-maker?   I thought all the fines went to a central govt fund anyhow? I take it that this doesn't apply to the money paid for courses, then?[/p][/quote]Actually, the government have washed their hands of speed cameras, and pass the buck, saying that road safety is for local authorities to deal with. It takes more than painting something yellow for it not to be a money spinner. Yes, fines go to government, Dorset Police keep 100% of the course money - and the criteria has been widened such that the vast majority of "offences" result in course offers, and even further, uniquely for Dorset, you can take the course every year. Does that mean that Dorset Police think the course is so useless it is effective only for one year, or do they not give a stuff about effectiveness and they just want drivers on it as often as they can get away with at £110 a time (again uniquely for Dorset, the highest course fee).[/p][/quote]It's only £10 more than the fixed penalty notice and you don't get the three penalty points on your licence. I would hardly call that daylight robbery. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

7:49pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar.

Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space
I don't believe that for one minute.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space[/p][/quote]I don't believe that for one minute. tbpoole
  • Score: -1

7:53pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Desperado says...

These police speed traps are definitely only out there to make money .
I know, I was done on a Sunday morning at 7:30 heading towards Creekmoor
I had just come over the brow of the hill from the Fleetsbridge roundabout , in a vintage diesel Land rover allegedly doing 39 miles per hour , which as anyone who has drive an old land rover will know is impossible .
I tried every avenue to get the police to see sense , but to no avail , all they would say to me was that their equipment was infallible , so are the police using the equipment .
The only way I could get justice was to employ a solicitor and all sorts of stuff to prove them wrong, but it would have cost me a fortune , so I took it on the chin and put it down to experience .
But I have now lost all respect for the police and the British justice system.
So the moral of this is, just because they say you were speeding doesn't mean you were, if you think they are wrong ,and you have the time and money to fight it .
Fight it.
They are corrupt .
These police speed traps are definitely only out there to make money . I know, I was done on a Sunday morning at 7:30 heading towards Creekmoor I had just come over the brow of the hill from the Fleetsbridge roundabout , in a vintage diesel Land rover allegedly doing 39 miles per hour , which as anyone who has drive an old land rover will know is impossible . I tried every avenue to get the police to see sense , but to no avail , all they would say to me was that their equipment was infallible , so are the police using the equipment . The only way I could get justice was to employ a solicitor and all sorts of stuff to prove them wrong, but it would have cost me a fortune , so I took it on the chin and put it down to experience . But I have now lost all respect for the police and the British justice system. So the moral of this is, just because they say you were speeding doesn't mean you were, if you think they are wrong ,and you have the time and money to fight it . Fight it. They are corrupt . Desperado
  • Score: 9

8:12pm Tue 29 Apr 14

ashleycross says...

How handy, now the echo reporters can speed their way to stories without worrying about losing their licenses.
You are seriously out of step with readers' opinions here. We quite like the idea of prats who think the speed limit doesn't apply to them having their licenses taken away and being fined.
How handy, now the echo reporters can speed their way to stories without worrying about losing their licenses. You are seriously out of step with readers' opinions here. We quite like the idea of prats who think the speed limit doesn't apply to them having their licenses taken away and being fined. ashleycross
  • Score: -4

8:14pm Tue 29 Apr 14

ashleycross says...

Perhaps if some of you got some bi focals you could see to drive and see your speedometer at the same time rather than just feel the police are out to get you!
Perhaps if some of you got some bi focals you could see to drive and see your speedometer at the same time rather than just feel the police are out to get you! ashleycross
  • Score: -3

8:59pm Tue 29 Apr 14

blackdog1 says...

nickynoodah wrote:
pic above
a previous poster says he looks like Mr Bean,
I say nothing like him.
What on earth is wrong with you? I wish the Echo would ban you from these forums as all you do is write utter nonsense time and time again! You really need to seek medical help!
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: pic above a previous poster says he looks like Mr Bean, I say nothing like him.[/p][/quote]What on earth is wrong with you? I wish the Echo would ban you from these forums as all you do is write utter nonsense time and time again! You really need to seek medical help! blackdog1
  • Score: 2

9:16pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

9:43pm Tue 29 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar.

Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space
I don't believe that for one minute.
I know you don't but unlike Dorset Police I have never lied. I have had meetings only with Colin Searle when he was Chief Superintendent, and Colin Smith Head of professional standards at Hampshire in relation to my IPCC complaint against Dorset. Having had discussion with them both have said that I should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space[/p][/quote]I don't believe that for one minute.[/p][/quote]I know you don't but unlike Dorset Police I have never lied. I have had meetings only with Colin Searle when he was Chief Superintendent, and Colin Smith Head of professional standards at Hampshire in relation to my IPCC complaint against Dorset. Having had discussion with them both have said that I should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

10:46pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
I would be very careful because that is sailing pretty close to being a libellous statement.....
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]I would be very careful because that is sailing pretty close to being a libellous statement..... tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

Desperado wrote:
These police speed traps are definitely only out there to make money .
I know, I was done on a Sunday morning at 7:30 heading towards Creekmoor
I had just come over the brow of the hill from the Fleetsbridge roundabout , in a vintage diesel Land rover allegedly doing 39 miles per hour , which as anyone who has drive an old land rover will know is impossible .
I tried every avenue to get the police to see sense , but to no avail , all they would say to me was that their equipment was infallible , so are the police using the equipment .
The only way I could get justice was to employ a solicitor and all sorts of stuff to prove them wrong, but it would have cost me a fortune , so I took it on the chin and put it down to experience .
But I have now lost all respect for the police and the British justice system.
So the moral of this is, just because they say you were speeding doesn't mean you were, if you think they are wrong ,and you have the time and money to fight it .
Fight it.
They are corrupt .
What they are corrupt because you were caught speeding? Pmsl at that comment!
[quote][p][bold]Desperado[/bold] wrote: These police speed traps are definitely only out there to make money . I know, I was done on a Sunday morning at 7:30 heading towards Creekmoor I had just come over the brow of the hill from the Fleetsbridge roundabout , in a vintage diesel Land rover allegedly doing 39 miles per hour , which as anyone who has drive an old land rover will know is impossible . I tried every avenue to get the police to see sense , but to no avail , all they would say to me was that their equipment was infallible , so are the police using the equipment . The only way I could get justice was to employ a solicitor and all sorts of stuff to prove them wrong, but it would have cost me a fortune , so I took it on the chin and put it down to experience . But I have now lost all respect for the police and the British justice system. So the moral of this is, just because they say you were speeding doesn't mean you were, if you think they are wrong ,and you have the time and money to fight it . Fight it. They are corrupt .[/p][/quote]What they are corrupt because you were caught speeding? Pmsl at that comment! tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Tue 29 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar.

Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space
I don't believe that for one minute.
I know you don't but unlike Dorset Police I have never lied. I have had meetings only with Colin Searle when he was Chief Superintendent, and Colin Smith Head of professional standards at Hampshire in relation to my IPCC complaint against Dorset. Having had discussion with them both have said that I should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.
I wouldn't trust you to be involved in meetings on hedgehogs crossing the road safely.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space[/p][/quote]I don't believe that for one minute.[/p][/quote]I know you don't but unlike Dorset Police I have never lied. I have had meetings only with Colin Searle when he was Chief Superintendent, and Colin Smith Head of professional standards at Hampshire in relation to my IPCC complaint against Dorset. Having had discussion with them both have said that I should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't trust you to be involved in meetings on hedgehogs crossing the road safely. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

11:13pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
simnic wrote:
why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple!
Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.
I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar.

Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.
Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space
I don't believe that for one minute.
I know you don't but unlike Dorset Police I have never lied. I have had meetings only with Colin Searle when he was Chief Superintendent, and Colin Smith Head of professional standards at Hampshire in relation to my IPCC complaint against Dorset. Having had discussion with them both have said that I should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.
'. . . should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.' is a long way from being, 'will be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.'

Judging from the contents of DorsetSpeed's numerous posts to this forum, I'd say he is the last person anybody would want 'involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.'
It is not wise, DorsetSpeed, to accuse publically the Police of lying, corruption, etc., and then expect them to listen to you.
Your campaign will not make any positive progress unless and until you cease making these ill-considered accusations against the Police.
Before anybody asks, no I am not connected in any way with the Police, local Council, or any other party concerned with road safety.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simnic[/bold] wrote: why do people throw their arms up in the air and throw their toys out of their pram when there is a mention of speed cameras or get nicked for speeding. This is simple, doesnt need any mathematical formula and can be avoided...DON'T SPEED...it's that simple![/p][/quote]Speeding is not good. But the reason that there is widespread objection to the way in which road policing is done is because safety is not the primary objective - making money is. This corrupts what the police do, gives them the wrong operational priorities, etc., even corrupts speed limit decision making and when you have road safety determined by such corruption you have increased danger over road safety determined by honest, competent, transparent policing.[/p][/quote]I think the way dorsetspleen tries to around every Echo article on speed enforcement to suit his particular argument and also the way he attempts to dominate proceedings is becoming depressingly familiar. Luckily the police don't have to seek his approval to carry out this work or else nothing would get done and many more drivers would be killed on our roads.[/p][/quote]Actually, all the police who have had the decency to communicate with me properly have suggested that I take part in road safety decision making. Watch this space[/p][/quote]I don't believe that for one minute.[/p][/quote]I know you don't but unlike Dorset Police I have never lied. I have had meetings only with Colin Searle when he was Chief Superintendent, and Colin Smith Head of professional standards at Hampshire in relation to my IPCC complaint against Dorset. Having had discussion with them both have said that I should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.[/p][/quote]'. . . should be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.' is a long way from being, 'will be involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.' Judging from the contents of DorsetSpeed's numerous posts to this forum, I'd say he is the last person anybody would want 'involved in meetings with Dorset Police on road safety.' It is not wise, DorsetSpeed, to accuse publically the Police of lying, corruption, etc., and then expect them to listen to you. Your campaign will not make any positive progress unless and until you cease making these ill-considered accusations against the Police. Before anybody asks, no I am not connected in any way with the Police, local Council, or any other party concerned with road safety. Rally
  • Score: -1

11:21pm Tue 29 Apr 14

muscliffman says...

breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all!
Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?
Just think it through it's quite simple....No doubt Dorset Police vehicles have ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) but if a vehicle is improperly registered when caught on any static camera/radar (ANPR or not - human held, van or post mounted) unless there is absolutely immediate roadside Police support, intervention and perhaps pursuit it and it's illegal driver can/will most likely remain untraceable.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all![/p][/quote]Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?[/p][/quote]Just think it through it's quite simple....No doubt Dorset Police vehicles have ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) but if a vehicle is improperly registered when caught on any static camera/radar (ANPR or not - human held, van or post mounted) unless there is absolutely immediate roadside Police support, intervention and perhaps pursuit it and it's illegal driver can/will most likely remain untraceable. muscliffman
  • Score: 3

12:09am Wed 30 Apr 14

s-pb2 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes.

The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.
Id like to think they use the money by having a boozy fun night out, as they have to put up with the complete idiots they nick who are way too arrogant to feel that the law does not apply to them. Well i got news for all those dilberts. The law does apply to them. I think they should fine these people double what they get fined now, so that the police officers can have a bigger night out!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes. The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.[/p][/quote]Id like to think they use the money by having a boozy fun night out, as they have to put up with the complete idiots they nick who are way too arrogant to feel that the law does not apply to them. Well i got news for all those dilberts. The law does apply to them. I think they should fine these people double what they get fined now, so that the police officers can have a bigger night out! s-pb2
  • Score: 0

12:22am Wed 30 Apr 14

Minty Fresh says...

Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 8

1:01am Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

6:29am Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
Actually it's a £100 if you choose to take the points and this goes straight to the government.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.[/p][/quote]Actually it's a £100 if you choose to take the points and this goes straight to the government. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

6:32am Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

muscliffman wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all!
Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?
Just think it through it's quite simple....No doubt Dorset Police vehicles have ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) but if a vehicle is improperly registered when caught on any static camera/radar (ANPR or not - human held, van or post mounted) unless there is absolutely immediate roadside Police support, intervention and perhaps pursuit it and it's illegal driver can/will most likely remain untraceable.
What so they can't radio ahead to another traffic cop or wait there the same time the following day or week?
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all![/p][/quote]Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?[/p][/quote]Just think it through it's quite simple....No doubt Dorset Police vehicles have ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) but if a vehicle is improperly registered when caught on any static camera/radar (ANPR or not - human held, van or post mounted) unless there is absolutely immediate roadside Police support, intervention and perhaps pursuit it and it's illegal driver can/will most likely remain untraceable.[/p][/quote]What so they can't radio ahead to another traffic cop or wait there the same time the following day or week? tbpoole
  • Score: -1

8:13am Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance?

There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is:

"Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money.

They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment."

Let's add a definition of "corruption":
http://www.transpare
ncy.org.uk/corruptio
n

"Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority."

These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police.

You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly.

As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

8:28am Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

There seem to be some surprised that the police could ever tell lies or be corrupt. Welcome to the real world:

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2592055/The-Met-betr
ayed-brother-Last-we
ek-exposed-police-co
rruption-linking-bot
ched-Stephen-Lawrenc
e-probe-axe-killing-
private-eye-Today-re
veal-chilling-new-te
stimony.html

http://www.theguardi
an.com/uk-news/2013/
nov/14/public-suppor
t-waning-police-crim
e-commissioners

http://www.heart.co.
uk/dunstable/news/lo
cal/corrupt-police-o
fficer-jailed/

http://grandmabarbar
a.wordpress.com/2-cr
imes-committed-by-no
rth-yorkshire-police
/the-worst-case-of-p
olice-corruption-in-
british-history/

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-21154316

http://www.theguardi
an.com/uk-news/2014/
mar/05/cleveland-pol
ice-corruption-opera
tion-sacristy-no-cha
rges

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2614068/A-gangster-l
eft-rot-sealed-barre
l-stench-corruption-
goes-top.html

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2537037/Scotland-Yar
d-corruption-leaked-
report-claims-police
-bribed-DESTROY-evid
ence-SLEPT-criminals
-intimidated-witness
es.html

http://www.bexley-is
-bonkers.co.uk/misce
llany/police/corrupt
ion.shtml

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/229007
/9780108510991.pdf

http://www.channel4.
com/news/police-corr
uption-crime-to-be-c
reated-after-lawrenc
e-review
There seem to be some surprised that the police could ever tell lies or be corrupt. Welcome to the real world: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2592055/The-Met-betr ayed-brother-Last-we ek-exposed-police-co rruption-linking-bot ched-Stephen-Lawrenc e-probe-axe-killing- private-eye-Today-re veal-chilling-new-te stimony.html http://www.theguardi an.com/uk-news/2013/ nov/14/public-suppor t-waning-police-crim e-commissioners http://www.heart.co. uk/dunstable/news/lo cal/corrupt-police-o fficer-jailed/ http://grandmabarbar a.wordpress.com/2-cr imes-committed-by-no rth-yorkshire-police /the-worst-case-of-p olice-corruption-in- british-history/ http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-21154316 http://www.theguardi an.com/uk-news/2014/ mar/05/cleveland-pol ice-corruption-opera tion-sacristy-no-cha rges http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2614068/A-gangster-l eft-rot-sealed-barre l-stench-corruption- goes-top.html http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2537037/Scotland-Yar d-corruption-leaked- report-claims-police -bribed-DESTROY-evid ence-SLEPT-criminals -intimidated-witness es.html http://www.bexley-is -bonkers.co.uk/misce llany/police/corrupt ion.shtml https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/229007 /9780108510991.pdf http://www.channel4. com/news/police-corr uption-crime-to-be-c reated-after-lawrenc e-review dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

8:42am Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office?

Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.[/p][/quote]You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy! tbpoole
  • Score: 0

8:43am Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

*Fantasy!*
*Fantasy!* tbpoole
  • Score: 1

8:46am Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
I agree with you breamoreboy but you'll never get dorsetspleen to admit he is wrong, not in a million years.......
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]I agree with you breamoreboy but you'll never get dorsetspleen to admit he is wrong, not in a million years....... tbpoole
  • Score: 0

8:49am Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office?

Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!
You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.[/p][/quote]You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy![/p][/quote]You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

9:10am Wed 30 Apr 14

LawabidingEnglishman says...

Speed isn't the killer, it's lack of attention. Not putting on lights in fog, using a mobile phone, not wearing a seatbelt, putting on make-up (yes I have seen that!)
Not only that but people who do 40 in a 60 are also culpable as people behind try to overtake and take risks ending in head-on collisions.
We all read about it in the Echo.
Speed isn't the killer, it's lack of attention. Not putting on lights in fog, using a mobile phone, not wearing a seatbelt, putting on make-up (yes I have seen that!) Not only that but people who do 40 in a 60 are also culpable as people behind try to overtake and take risks ending in head-on collisions. We all read about it in the Echo. LawabidingEnglishman
  • Score: 0

9:14am Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

"Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!"

As I said, no I don't "believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt"

It is however different to all other forces in terms of the course:

1. It is the only force not signed up to the national scheme, so someone from outside Dorset must come back to Dorset for the course and cannot take it local to them

2. In Dorset you can take the course every year, you can only do the national scheme every 3 years. This either means the course is considered to be effective for only a year (what is the point in that) or that it is in fact throughput that is the main concern. It also means that uniquely in Dorset you can still be on the road speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years, when it is 4 years everywhere else.

3. The course is the most expensive in the UK.


These are all further indications that it is only the money Dorset Police are concerned with
"Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!" As I said, no I don't "believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt" It is however different to all other forces in terms of the course: 1. It is the only force not signed up to the national scheme, so someone from outside Dorset must come back to Dorset for the course and cannot take it local to them 2. In Dorset you can take the course every year, you can only do the national scheme every 3 years. This either means the course is considered to be effective for only a year (what is the point in that) or that it is in fact throughput that is the main concern. It also means that uniquely in Dorset you can still be on the road speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years, when it is 4 years everywhere else. 3. The course is the most expensive in the UK. These are all further indications that it is only the money Dorset Police are concerned with dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

11:21am Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!
You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.
But by saying "the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police" you are implying that very point.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.[/p][/quote]You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy![/p][/quote]You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.[/p][/quote]But by saying "the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police" you are implying that very point. tbpoole
  • Score: -1

11:44am Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

Found this on an insurance website...."Despite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year.
According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011".
So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority....
Found this on an insurance website...."Despite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year. According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011". So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority.... tbpoole
  • Score: -1

11:48am Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!
You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.
But by saying "the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police" you are implying that very point.
So if I say "there is evidence of people wearing blue shirts at Dorset Police" I am implying that everyone at Dorset police wear blue shirts? I haven't got time for this nonsense,
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.[/p][/quote]You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy![/p][/quote]You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.[/p][/quote]But by saying "the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police" you are implying that very point.[/p][/quote]So if I say "there is evidence of people wearing blue shirts at Dorset Police" I am implying that everyone at Dorset police wear blue shirts? I haven't got time for this nonsense, dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

12:03pm Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
Found this on an insurance website...."Des
pite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year.
According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011".
So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority....
tbpoole, I am happy to have sensible debate but you are going completely off at a tangent and becoming rather childish again. You can find any kind of poll you would like, for example,

"70% of fleet drivers opposed to "stealth" speed cameras"

‘No, I don't (agree). More people will get frustrated with the roads being restricted; in turn more accidents. Which in turn will mean higher insurance, higher road tax rates and, therefore, money on court cases etc. It will cause a mess!’

‘This is just another money-making scheme and a way to catch people out. Spend money on something that is actually proven to keep people safe.’

‘Just another stealth tax from the Government!’

‘No, this could cause an accident if the driver sees this at the last minute. This isn’t about safety, it’s just a con.’

http://fleetworld.co
.uk/news/2014/Mar/70
-percent-of-fleet-dr
ivers-opposed-to-ste
alth-speed-cameras/0
434013299

Ask the public if they would like lower taxes and most will say yes. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

And check any news article about cameras. You will find the comments and scores simply don't agree with those polls.

And even if these views were in a minority, they are still right. No one seems able to provide any credible challenge.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: Found this on an insurance website...."Des pite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year. According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011". So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority....[/p][/quote]tbpoole, I am happy to have sensible debate but you are going completely off at a tangent and becoming rather childish again. You can find any kind of poll you would like, for example, "70% of fleet drivers opposed to "stealth" speed cameras" ‘No, I don't (agree). More people will get frustrated with the roads being restricted; in turn more accidents. Which in turn will mean higher insurance, higher road tax rates and, therefore, money on court cases etc. It will cause a mess!’ ‘This is just another money-making scheme and a way to catch people out. Spend money on something that is actually proven to keep people safe.’ ‘Just another stealth tax from the Government!’ ‘No, this could cause an accident if the driver sees this at the last minute. This isn’t about safety, it’s just a con.’ http://fleetworld.co .uk/news/2014/Mar/70 -percent-of-fleet-dr ivers-opposed-to-ste alth-speed-cameras/0 434013299 Ask the public if they would like lower taxes and most will say yes. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And check any news article about cameras. You will find the comments and scores simply don't agree with those polls. And even if these views were in a minority, they are still right. No one seems able to provide any credible challenge. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote: Found this on an insurance website...."Des pite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year. According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011". So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority....
tbpoole, I am happy to have sensible debate but you are going completely off at a tangent and becoming rather childish again. You can find any kind of poll you would like, for example, "70% of fleet drivers opposed to "stealth" speed cameras" ‘No, I don't (agree). More people will get frustrated with the roads being restricted; in turn more accidents. Which in turn will mean higher insurance, higher road tax rates and, therefore, money on court cases etc. It will cause a mess!’ ‘This is just another money-making scheme and a way to catch people out. Spend money on something that is actually proven to keep people safe.’ ‘Just another stealth tax from the Government!’ ‘No, this could cause an accident if the driver sees this at the last minute. This isn’t about safety, it’s just a con.’ http://fleetworld.co .uk/news/2014/Mar/70 -percent-of-fleet-dr ivers-opposed-to-ste alth-speed-cameras/0 434013299 Ask the public if they would like lower taxes and most will say yes. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And check any news article about cameras. You will find the comments and scores simply don't agree with those polls. And even if these views were in a minority, they are still right. No one seems able to provide any credible challenge.
I would hardly call quoting an article from the Institution of Advanced Motorists as being childish. I will forward your comments on to them and let them see how childish you really are. I will also ask them to respond to your comments about how rubbish you think their survey is and how you totally refute their findings. Should be an intersting discussion.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: Found this on an insurance website...."Des pite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year. According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011". So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority....[/p][/quote]tbpoole, I am happy to have sensible debate but you are going completely off at a tangent and becoming rather childish again. You can find any kind of poll you would like, for example, "70% of fleet drivers opposed to "stealth" speed cameras" ‘No, I don't (agree). More people will get frustrated with the roads being restricted; in turn more accidents. Which in turn will mean higher insurance, higher road tax rates and, therefore, money on court cases etc. It will cause a mess!’ ‘This is just another money-making scheme and a way to catch people out. Spend money on something that is actually proven to keep people safe.’ ‘Just another stealth tax from the Government!’ ‘No, this could cause an accident if the driver sees this at the last minute. This isn’t about safety, it’s just a con.’ http://fleetworld.co .uk/news/2014/Mar/70 -percent-of-fleet-dr ivers-opposed-to-ste alth-speed-cameras/0 434013299 Ask the public if they would like lower taxes and most will say yes. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And check any news article about cameras. You will find the comments and scores simply don't agree with those polls. And even if these views were in a minority, they are still right. No one seems able to provide any credible challenge.[/p][/quote]I would hardly call quoting an article from the Institution of Advanced Motorists as being childish. I will forward your comments on to them and let them see how childish you really are. I will also ask them to respond to your comments about how rubbish you think their survey is and how you totally refute their findings. Should be an intersting discussion. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!
You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.
But by saying "the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police" you are implying that very point.
So if I say "there is evidence of people wearing blue shirts at Dorset Police" I am implying that everyone at Dorset police wear blue shirts? I haven't got time for this nonsense,
I think if you are attempting to besmirch an organisation then you should at the very least take the time to see what effect you may be having on public opinion towards it.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.[/p][/quote]You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy![/p][/quote]You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.[/p][/quote]But by saying "the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police" you are implying that very point.[/p][/quote]So if I say "there is evidence of people wearing blue shirts at Dorset Police" I am implying that everyone at Dorset police wear blue shirts? I haven't got time for this nonsense,[/p][/quote]I think if you are attempting to besmirch an organisation then you should at the very least take the time to see what effect you may be having on public opinion towards it. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

1:17pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Tom_BH2 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year?

It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk.

I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though. Tom_BH2
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Wed 30 Apr 14

kangaroo_joey says...

The Liberal wrote:
I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
Because it is against the law for them to be hidden, they have to be visible hence being painted in bright colours
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]Because it is against the law for them to be hidden, they have to be visible hence being painted in bright colours kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 3

2:08pm Wed 30 Apr 14

kangaroo_joey says...

s-pb2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes. The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.
Id like to think they use the money by having a boozy fun night out, as they have to put up with the complete idiots they nick who are way too arrogant to feel that the law does not apply to them. Well i got news for all those dilberts. The law does apply to them. I think they should fine these people double what they get fined now, so that the police officers can have a bigger night out!
The police dont deserve anything, they make a rod for their own back
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Dangerous money making scam. And no one from Dorset Police / Road Unsafe / whatever will stand up and answer questions. For 3 years now they have refused to detail where the £millions of course money goes. The recent news that "EVERYONE employed by Dorset Police will be expected to work to 'exemplary standards' as the Force signs up to a new Code of Ethics today" would be comical if the whole situation was not so serious, damaging and dangerous.[/p][/quote]Id like to think they use the money by having a boozy fun night out, as they have to put up with the complete idiots they nick who are way too arrogant to feel that the law does not apply to them. Well i got news for all those dilberts. The law does apply to them. I think they should fine these people double what they get fined now, so that the police officers can have a bigger night out![/p][/quote]The police dont deserve anything, they make a rod for their own back kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 1

2:11pm Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

Tom_BH2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year?

It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk.

I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.
The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible.
[quote][p][bold]Tom_BH2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.[/p][/quote]The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

2:18pm Wed 30 Apr 14

kangaroo_joey says...

Also for people that are saying the police are whiter than white, have you heard of the Hillsborough tragedy where 96 innocent people died and hundreds of officers covered this up and downright lied and how about the Plebgate row where the poliction was accused of calling the policeman on duty a pleb, well as it transpires the police concocted that story between themselves. And as someone wanted Dorsetspeed to provide evidence, when he did he got told they were isolated incidents, well he provided the evidence and proved the police are corrupt. Why do you think a large proportion of people have nop faith in the police, its because they seem more intent of raking in the cash than actually do proper police work.

I work in insurance and we cant use speed as a way to prove accidents so if it was the be all and end all then surley insurance companys would use speed as a factor
Also for people that are saying the police are whiter than white, have you heard of the Hillsborough tragedy where 96 innocent people died and hundreds of officers covered this up and downright lied and how about the Plebgate row where the poliction was accused of calling the policeman on duty a pleb, well as it transpires the police concocted that story between themselves. And as someone wanted Dorsetspeed to provide evidence, when he did he got told they were isolated incidents, well he provided the evidence and proved the police are corrupt. Why do you think a large proportion of people have nop faith in the police, its because they seem more intent of raking in the cash than actually do proper police work. I work in insurance and we cant use speed as a way to prove accidents so if it was the be all and end all then surley insurance companys would use speed as a factor kangaroo_joey
  • Score: 1

3:38pm Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

muscliffman wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all!
Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?
Just think it through it's quite simple....No doubt Dorset Police vehicles have ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) but if a vehicle is improperly registered when caught on any static camera/radar (ANPR or not - human held, van or post mounted) unless there is absolutely immediate roadside Police support, intervention and perhaps pursuit it and it's illegal driver can/will most likely remain untraceable.
If the Dorset police or any other force need assistance with their IT systems I'll be able to help. However I strongly suspect that there are already mechanisms in place whereby ANPR data is stored and the vehicle is flashed up on a screen as suspect. At their convenience the Police Interceptors trundle round to the address of the registered keeper and wait. Or, wait for it, perhaps they actually talk to each other on radios. As Captain Mainwearing and DS would say "Typical shabby Nazi trick". An alternative is of course that I'm simply wrong, in which case we can say the Poor Bloody Taxpayer a few quid by scrapping the Police National Computer System, or whatever the thing is actually called, I'm too lazy to duckduckgo for it.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Naturally any completely illegal drivers outside the system in their unlicensed, uninsured and improperly registered vehicles recorded speeding dangerously by these 'safety partnership' mobile cameras will most certainly NOT be hearing from the Authorities with charges and penalties any time soon - or in fact ever at all![/p][/quote]Are you saying that police vehicles in Dorset don't have ANPR?[/p][/quote]Just think it through it's quite simple....No doubt Dorset Police vehicles have ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) but if a vehicle is improperly registered when caught on any static camera/radar (ANPR or not - human held, van or post mounted) unless there is absolutely immediate roadside Police support, intervention and perhaps pursuit it and it's illegal driver can/will most likely remain untraceable.[/p][/quote]If the Dorset police or any other force need assistance with their IT systems I'll be able to help. However I strongly suspect that there are already mechanisms in place whereby ANPR data is stored and the vehicle is flashed up on a screen as suspect. At their convenience the Police Interceptors trundle round to the address of the registered keeper and wait. Or, wait for it, perhaps they actually talk to each other on radios. As Captain Mainwearing and DS would say "Typical shabby Nazi trick". An alternative is of course that I'm simply wrong, in which case we can say the Poor Bloody Taxpayer a few quid by scrapping the Police National Computer System, or whatever the thing is actually called, I'm too lazy to duckduckgo for it. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

3:55pm Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.[/p][/quote]So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

4:00pm Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
There seem to be some surprised that the police could ever tell lies or be corrupt. Welcome to the real world:

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2592055/The-Met-betr

ayed-brother-Last-we

ek-exposed-police-co

rruption-linking-bot

ched-Stephen-Lawrenc

e-probe-axe-killing-

private-eye-Today-re

veal-chilling-new-te

stimony.html

http://www.theguardi

an.com/uk-news/2013/

nov/14/public-suppor

t-waning-police-crim

e-commissioners

http://www.heart.co.

uk/dunstable/news/lo

cal/corrupt-police-o

fficer-jailed/

http://grandmabarbar

a.wordpress.com/2-cr

imes-committed-by-no

rth-yorkshire-police

/the-worst-case-of-p

olice-corruption-in-

british-history/

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-21154316

http://www.theguardi

an.com/uk-news/2014/

mar/05/cleveland-pol

ice-corruption-opera

tion-sacristy-no-cha

rges

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2614068/A-gangster-l

eft-rot-sealed-barre

l-stench-corruption-

goes-top.html

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2537037/Scotland-Yar

d-corruption-leaked-

report-claims-police

-bribed-DESTROY-evid

ence-SLEPT-criminals

-intimidated-witness

es.html

http://www.bexley-is

-bonkers.co.uk/misce

llany/police/corrupt

ion.shtml

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/229007

/9780108510991.pdf

http://www.channel4.

com/news/police-corr

uption-crime-to-be-c

reated-after-lawrenc

e-review
It's good to know that there are coorupt police officers but nobody in this country who do things like break laws. For example driving over the speed limits. Heck, why do I bother, I've just realised that DS stands for Dead Stupid.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: There seem to be some surprised that the police could ever tell lies or be corrupt. Welcome to the real world: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2592055/The-Met-betr ayed-brother-Last-we ek-exposed-police-co rruption-linking-bot ched-Stephen-Lawrenc e-probe-axe-killing- private-eye-Today-re veal-chilling-new-te stimony.html http://www.theguardi an.com/uk-news/2013/ nov/14/public-suppor t-waning-police-crim e-commissioners http://www.heart.co. uk/dunstable/news/lo cal/corrupt-police-o fficer-jailed/ http://grandmabarbar a.wordpress.com/2-cr imes-committed-by-no rth-yorkshire-police /the-worst-case-of-p olice-corruption-in- british-history/ http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-21154316 http://www.theguardi an.com/uk-news/2014/ mar/05/cleveland-pol ice-corruption-opera tion-sacristy-no-cha rges http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2614068/A-gangster-l eft-rot-sealed-barre l-stench-corruption- goes-top.html http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2537037/Scotland-Yar d-corruption-leaked- report-claims-police -bribed-DESTROY-evid ence-SLEPT-criminals -intimidated-witness es.html http://www.bexley-is -bonkers.co.uk/misce llany/police/corrupt ion.shtml https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/229007 /9780108510991.pdf http://www.channel4. com/news/police-corr uption-crime-to-be-c reated-after-lawrenc e-review[/p][/quote]It's good to know that there are coorupt police officers but nobody in this country who do things like break laws. For example driving over the speed limits. Heck, why do I bother, I've just realised that DS stands for Dead Stupid. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote:
Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are.
Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc.

Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous.

You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance?

There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is:

"Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money.

They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment."

Let's add a definition of "corruption":
http://www.transpare

ncy.org.uk/corruptio

n

"Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority."

These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police.

You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly.

As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
Whitewash. Dorset Police equates to private gain? The stuff you're smoking is far stronger than I originally thought, so I won't bother thank you, far too dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.[/p][/quote]Whitewash. Dorset Police equates to private gain? The stuff you're smoking is far stronger than I originally thought, so I won't bother thank you, far too dangerous. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

4:05pm Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
I agree with you breamoreboy but you'll never get dorsetspleen to admit he is wrong, not in a million years.......
I know but it's great fun :-)
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]I agree with you breamoreboy but you'll never get dorsetspleen to admit he is wrong, not in a million years.......[/p][/quote]I know but it's great fun :-) breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

4:09pm Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
canfordcherry wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple!
No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.
Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.
One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.
I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.
You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?
Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.
Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.
You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office?

Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy!
You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.
You've done nothing of the sort you complete moron. I repeat my claim that there is *NOTHING* on your site that can be regarded as evidence. Facts please not more whitewash.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canfordcherry[/bold] wrote: Don't drive over the legal speed limit and you won't have to worry where the cameras are. Simple![/p][/quote]No, everyone pays for misguided safety activities, through increased danger on the roads, corrupt policing, distraction from competent and effective road safety work, etc. Not to mention dangerously / obstructively positioned mobile vans, driver distraction, etc. Yes breamoreboy, all these things and more are dangerous.[/p][/quote]Your evidence to back *ALL* of the claims you make above, please. Would you be kind enough to start by showing how "corrupt policing" is dangerous.[/p][/quote]One of the primary purposes of the police is to promote the safety of the public. If they are corrupt, they will not be fulfilling any of their responsibilities properly, which is therefore dangerous. You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk.[/p][/quote]I've targeted searches using google and duckduckgo at your website and can't find anything about police corruption causing our roads to be dangerous. Would you please be kind enough to point out the appropriate links so that everybody reading here can review what's been written regarding this extremely serious matter.[/p][/quote]You won't find anything because it is all in the imagination of dorsetspleen.[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. Organisations A and B do safety work. A is corrupt, B is not. Which organisation is likely to be more effective? What are the consequences of less effective safety work? Can you work it out?[/p][/quote]Dear oh dear, let me see if I can spell it out with an example. You have stated above "You can find all the evidence you could possibly want on my website dorsetspeed.org.uk." There is *NOTHING* on your site at all about police corruption, let alone evidence to support your claim. So you have two options. Produce the evidence to support your claims, or stop making them.[/p][/quote]Blimey, are you tbpoole's brother by any chance? There might not be a statement "Dorset Police are corrupt because ...." but there is as I said EVIDENCE of it. The whole site is about police making money, not saving life. In bold near the top of the home page there is: "Income from Driver Awareness courses in Dorset, available to Dorset Police and the authorities who fund Dorset Road Unsafe. They lied about this for as long as they could, telling us that they had no "financial motivations" to use enforcements to make money. They now tell us "Any income that arises as the result of an offence is used entirely to enhance Road Safety". If this is true, why do they go to such lengths to avoid telling us where the money goes? At the least, it also keeps them all in employment." Let's add a definition of "corruption": http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." These items form "evidence", and when you put it together, the evidence suggests corruption in Dorset Police. You will see a far more explicit statement in my overview of the shocking case going back over 3 years which I will release shortly. As for corruption reducing efficiency, resulting in reduced safety performance and therefore danger, asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that dropping a brick on your foot hurts.[/p][/quote]You are talking about isolated instances, in other forces, where an individual or small group of individual 'rotten apples' are involved. That doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten. Where is your evidence of that?There must be similar examples of this behaviour with every other employer, whether private or publicly owned. Perhaps even in your field of work or office? Are you seriously expecting everyone to believe that the whole Dorset police force is doing something illegal or corrupt, or anything different to all other police forces who offer driver awareness courses? Fanatasy![/p][/quote]You're descending into pointless arguing and nit picking again. I have provided evidence of corruption, I am not saying that EVERYONE in the force is corrupt or that EVERYTHING Dorset Police does is corrupt.[/p][/quote]You've done nothing of the sort you complete moron. I repeat my claim that there is *NOTHING* on your site that can be regarded as evidence. Facts please not more whitewash. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

4:14pm Wed 30 Apr 14

breamoreboy says...

tbpoole wrote:
Found this on an insurance website...."Des
pite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year.
According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011".
So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority....
Evidence on Dead Stupid's website *PROVES* that all the data you quote above is corrupt.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: Found this on an insurance website...."Des pite the controversy surrounding speed cameras, it appears that most drivers still support their use and consider them vital for road safety. According to results from a survey carried out by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) in November 2013, 80% of drivers back the use of the devices on the roads. This is just 1% less than the percentage of motorists who said so last year. According to 79% of the respondents this year, safety cameras are needed since they help reduce injuries. This compares with 85% of drivers who were of the same opinion in 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of drivers expressing their support for speed awareness courses has increased, with 75% backing such initiatives compared to 70% in 2011". So dorsetspleen your views are very much in a minority....[/p][/quote]Evidence on Dead Stupid's website *PROVES* that all the data you quote above is corrupt. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Tom_BH2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.
The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible.
So what you are saying is....."fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"......howev
er the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to "suit your ability", the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way. Brilliant.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom_BH2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.[/p][/quote]The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is....."fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"......howev er the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to "suit your ability", the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way. Brilliant. tbpoole
  • Score: -2

4:32pm Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Tom_BH2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.
The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible.
So what you are saying is....."fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"......howev

er the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to "suit your ability", the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way. Brilliant.
No
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom_BH2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.[/p][/quote]The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is....."fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"......howev er the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to "suit your ability", the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way. Brilliant.[/p][/quote]No dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

5:08pm Wed 30 Apr 14

rayc says...

The BBC is reporting that there is concern at the large number of cases going to court in Dorset that do not achieve a Guilty verdict.
"Deputy Chief Constable James Vaughan of Dorset Police said some of the issues raised in the report were a result of recent changes which allowed the force to make charging decisions for approved types of lower level crimes including traffic offences."
The reason that the charging decision was removed from the Police and the CPS was formed was as a result of the in 1978 Royal Commission headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It found that the Police were not be impartial and many cases ended up in court where the evidence was poor and the Judge stopped the case.
The Government have now given the Police the prosecuting powers for some offences back. They have also introduced Police Officer issued FPN's for Careless Driving. Many of these are being challenged and a not guilty verdict found at the subsequent court appearance.
The BBC is reporting that there is concern at the large number of cases going to court in Dorset that do not achieve a Guilty verdict. "Deputy Chief Constable James Vaughan of Dorset Police said some of the issues raised in the report were a result of recent changes which allowed the force to make charging decisions for approved types of lower level crimes including traffic offences." The reason that the charging decision was removed from the Police and the CPS was formed was as a result of the in 1978 Royal Commission headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It found that the Police were not be impartial and many cases ended up in court where the evidence was poor and the Judge stopped the case. The Government have now given the Police the prosecuting powers for some offences back. They have also introduced Police Officer issued FPN's for Careless Driving. Many of these are being challenged and a not guilty verdict found at the subsequent court appearance. rayc
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Wed 30 Apr 14

dorsetspeed says...

rayc wrote:
The BBC is reporting that there is concern at the large number of cases going to court in Dorset that do not achieve a Guilty verdict.
"Deputy Chief Constable James Vaughan of Dorset Police said some of the issues raised in the report were a result of recent changes which allowed the force to make charging decisions for approved types of lower level crimes including traffic offences."
The reason that the charging decision was removed from the Police and the CPS was formed was as a result of the in 1978 Royal Commission headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It found that the Police were not be impartial and many cases ended up in court where the evidence was poor and the Judge stopped the case.
The Government have now given the Police the prosecuting powers for some offences back. They have also introduced Police Officer issued FPN's for Careless Driving. Many of these are being challenged and a not guilty verdict found at the subsequent court appearance.
One of the reasons sitting in a van targeting the easiest thing where all you need is one number is so attractive
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: The BBC is reporting that there is concern at the large number of cases going to court in Dorset that do not achieve a Guilty verdict. "Deputy Chief Constable James Vaughan of Dorset Police said some of the issues raised in the report were a result of recent changes which allowed the force to make charging decisions for approved types of lower level crimes including traffic offences." The reason that the charging decision was removed from the Police and the CPS was formed was as a result of the in 1978 Royal Commission headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It found that the Police were not be impartial and many cases ended up in court where the evidence was poor and the Judge stopped the case. The Government have now given the Police the prosecuting powers for some offences back. They have also introduced Police Officer issued FPN's for Careless Driving. Many of these are being challenged and a not guilty verdict found at the subsequent court appearance.[/p][/quote]One of the reasons sitting in a van targeting the easiest thing where all you need is one number is so attractive dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

7:42pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Minty Fresh says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.
A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including better signage, the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure designed to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure.

And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the mans demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.[/p][/quote]So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.[/p][/quote]A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including better signage, the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure designed to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure. And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the mans demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 3

7:45pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Minty Fresh says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.
A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure.

And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.[/p][/quote]So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.[/p][/quote]A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure. And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 3

10:38pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.
A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure.

And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP.
My, what a total nightmare you are, you have no real clue do you? Wasn't the bike rider primarily to blame for riding too fast in the first place then?

So are you effectively saying you can drive around recklessly everywhere but blame the presence of a speed camera if you have a crash?

Oh and how can you claim there are never cameras on rural roads? I travel around Dorset a lot and often see vans across the area.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.[/p][/quote]So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.[/p][/quote]A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure. And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP.[/p][/quote]My, what a total nightmare you are, you have no real clue do you? Wasn't the bike rider primarily to blame for riding too fast in the first place then? So are you effectively saying you can drive around recklessly everywhere but blame the presence of a speed camera if you have a crash? Oh and how can you claim there are never cameras on rural roads? I travel around Dorset a lot and often see vans across the area. tbpoole
  • Score: -1

10:41pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Tom_BH2 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.
The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times!
Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.
The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible.
So what you are saying is....."fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"......howev


er the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to "suit your ability", the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way. Brilliant.
No
What are you attempting to say then, because any sane person would interpret your comments in that way.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tom_BH2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: I know that some people claim that speed cameras/traps are a money-making scam, but that doesn't really tally with the reality. Why on earth would they disclose the locations - and paint static cameras bright yellow - if the aim were just to make money? It seems to me that the aim is to prevent speeding.[/p][/quote]The fact is that speed cameras result in an income for Dorset Police of over £2million. So the reality is that whatever the colour, they do make loads of money. I'm sure they would not disclose the locations or make them visible if they were not required to do so. And they do not prevent speeding - in fact their predictable locations make it easier to speed on 99% of road space. And the fact that in order to make money drivers are given courses, not points, means that you can still be driving and speeding after being caught 6 times in 3 years rather than 3 times![/p][/quote]Genuine question: Would keeping the cameras. if they are helping to fund Dorset Police, mean my Council Tax (in respect of policing costs) might not increase by much next year? It only makes it easier to speed on 99% of the roads if you *want* to speed. I do not want to speed, and consider those do as selfish. I appreciate that lots of other factors come in to play when it comes to RTCs, but from previous experience as a cyclist I am well aware that I am responsible for a 2 ton piece of metal that has the potential to end lives in a split-second, and keeping my speed at (or usually under) the legal limit, is one way I can mitigate the risk. I do agree with you about the lenient penalties though.[/p][/quote]The irrelevance of the speed limit purely in terms of road safety is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that there are just as many serious injuries and deaths with "inappropriate" speed (ie within the limit) as a factor as "exceeding the speed limit". So please don't think that driving within the limit makes you safe. You are far better to keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is....."fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"......howev er the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to "suit your ability", the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way. Brilliant.[/p][/quote]No[/p][/quote]What are you attempting to say then, because any sane person would interpret your comments in that way. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
rayc wrote:
The BBC is reporting that there is concern at the large number of cases going to court in Dorset that do not achieve a Guilty verdict.
"Deputy Chief Constable James Vaughan of Dorset Police said some of the issues raised in the report were a result of recent changes which allowed the force to make charging decisions for approved types of lower level crimes including traffic offences."
The reason that the charging decision was removed from the Police and the CPS was formed was as a result of the in 1978 Royal Commission headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It found that the Police were not be impartial and many cases ended up in court where the evidence was poor and the Judge stopped the case.
The Government have now given the Police the prosecuting powers for some offences back. They have also introduced Police Officer issued FPN's for Careless Driving. Many of these are being challenged and a not guilty verdict found at the subsequent court appearance.
One of the reasons sitting in a van targeting the easiest thing where all you need is one number is so attractive
One of the reasons for sitting behind a pc monitor targeting the easiest thing where all you need is to repeat inane comments is so attractive.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: The BBC is reporting that there is concern at the large number of cases going to court in Dorset that do not achieve a Guilty verdict. "Deputy Chief Constable James Vaughan of Dorset Police said some of the issues raised in the report were a result of recent changes which allowed the force to make charging decisions for approved types of lower level crimes including traffic offences." The reason that the charging decision was removed from the Police and the CPS was formed was as a result of the in 1978 Royal Commission headed by Sir Cyril Philips. It found that the Police were not be impartial and many cases ended up in court where the evidence was poor and the Judge stopped the case. The Government have now given the Police the prosecuting powers for some offences back. They have also introduced Police Officer issued FPN's for Careless Driving. Many of these are being challenged and a not guilty verdict found at the subsequent court appearance.[/p][/quote]One of the reasons sitting in a van targeting the easiest thing where all you need is one number is so attractive[/p][/quote]One of the reasons for sitting behind a pc monitor targeting the easiest thing where all you need is to repeat inane comments is so attractive. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:46am Thu 1 May 14

breamoreboy says...

Dead Stupid "Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine". Your proof, again let's see the evidence that supports your claim. My understanding is that tragically he was going too fast, panicked as he didn't want a speeding ticket, braked too sharply, lost control and crashed. You might just as well argue that you shouldn't have marked police cars on our roads as that could cause people to panic and crash. So you have unmarked cars and motorists complain that's too sneaky. The obvious solution is no police cars at all, that'll keep everybody happy.
Dead Stupid "Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine". Your proof, again let's see the evidence that supports your claim. My understanding is that tragically he was going too fast, panicked as he didn't want a speeding ticket, braked too sharply, lost control and crashed. You might just as well argue that you shouldn't have marked police cars on our roads as that could cause people to panic and crash. So you have unmarked cars and motorists complain that's too sneaky. The obvious solution is no police cars at all, that'll keep everybody happy. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

8:19am Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

So, tbpoole thinks that

"keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible"

means

"fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"

and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in.

I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty.

Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.
So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

8:44am Thu 1 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.
You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.[/p][/quote]You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

9:53am Thu 1 May 14

Rally says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.
You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they?
What I find disturbing here is how increasingly irrational Dorsetspeed is becoming with each and every one of his posts to this forum.
What else explains his making the comment, 'I will just say that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. '?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.[/p][/quote]You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they?[/p][/quote]What I find disturbing here is how increasingly irrational Dorsetspeed is becoming with each and every one of his posts to this forum. What else explains his making the comment, 'I will just say [snip] that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. '? Rally
  • Score: 0

10:00am Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

And what is irrational about that?
And what is irrational about that? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:04am Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.
You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they?
This is almost becoming comical, tbpoole accusing me of producing "warped versions" just after interpreting:

"keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible"

as

"fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"


This is simply becoming too ridiculous to waste time on
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.[/p][/quote]You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they?[/p][/quote]This is almost becoming comical, tbpoole accusing me of producing "warped versions" just after interpreting: "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" This is simply becoming too ridiculous to waste time on dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Thu 1 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.
You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they?
This is almost becoming comical, tbpoole accusing me of producing "warped versions" just after interpreting: "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" This is simply becoming too ridiculous to waste time on
No, what you have missed out from my previous post is what I went on to say (which was far more pertinent) i.e. "the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to 'suit your (driving) ability', the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way".

In other words my worry is that those less able to cope with surviving a crash with a fast moving solid object are further disadvantaged by your 'car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude displayed in all your posts and on your website.

I have no doubt that serious car driver injuries have reduced but at the expense of other road users. These remaining areas should be the ones to be focussed on, not the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with.

Now what is ridiculous, comical, or insulting about these comments please?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: So, tbpoole thinks that "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" means "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" and breamoreboy is having to resort to (also like tbpoole) childish and offensive name calling. This is far below a level that I am prepared to take part in. I will just say (yet again as tb and bb are taking it round in circles again) that the speed camera did not cause the motorcyclists death, but it was a factor, and a very significant one as without it the death would almost certainly not have occurred. Yes he was not faultless but the purpose of road safety policing is to turn bad driving into proportionate penalty / training / good driving, not to turn bad driving into death. Both before and ever since this unfortunate death Dorset Police have demonstrated a total failure to understand and manage the obvious risks with such enforcements and this is a failure of competence and a breach of duty of care and totally alien to any kind of professional safety work. Police cars do cause traffic slowing but not panic braking as they are not associated with humanless instantaneous zero tolerance penalty. Right from the start I have always been asking for more traffic police, marked and unmarked.[/p][/quote]You mean they have shown a total failure to agree with your warped verison of the truth. Why should they?[/p][/quote]This is almost becoming comical, tbpoole accusing me of producing "warped versions" just after interpreting: "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" This is simply becoming too ridiculous to waste time on[/p][/quote]No, what you have missed out from my previous post is what I went on to say (which was far more pertinent) i.e. "the majority of serious and fatal injuries are suffered by pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. So while you're busy whizzing down the road at a speed to 'suit your (driving) ability', the other more vulnerable souls will have even less time to leap or cycle out of the way". In other words my worry is that those less able to cope with surviving a crash with a fast moving solid object are further disadvantaged by your 'car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude displayed in all your posts and on your website. I have no doubt that serious car driver injuries have reduced but at the expense of other road users. These remaining areas should be the ones to be focussed on, not the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with. Now what is ridiculous, comical, or insulting about these comments please? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper!

So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible"

as

"fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"

but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with"

I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads.

Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities.

Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting). dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Thu 1 May 14

RT1066 says...

If we all comply with the speed limits the camera safety team will get no revenue and we can all be happy - no fines to pay and no camera team to moan about!!
If we all comply with the speed limits the camera safety team will get no revenue and we can all be happy - no fines to pay and no camera team to moan about!! RT1066
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Thu 1 May 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
And what is irrational about that?
If you have to ask that, dorsetspeed, then you really have lost the plot!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: And what is irrational about that?[/p][/quote]If you have to ask that, dorsetspeed, then you really have lost the plot! Rally
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
And what is irrational about that?
If you have to ask that, dorsetspeed, then you really have lost the plot!
How interesting, please explain?
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: And what is irrational about that?[/p][/quote]If you have to ask that, dorsetspeed, then you really have lost the plot![/p][/quote]How interesting, please explain? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

RT1066 wrote:
If we all comply with the speed limits the camera safety team will get no revenue and we can all be happy - no fines to pay and no camera team to moan about!!
I'm not sure even that would be good. There are fundamental issues of honesty and integrity. If there was no speeding, these issues could surface elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]RT1066[/bold] wrote: If we all comply with the speed limits the camera safety team will get no revenue and we can all be happy - no fines to pay and no camera team to moan about!![/p][/quote]I'm not sure even that would be good. There are fundamental issues of honesty and integrity. If there was no speeding, these issues could surface elsewhere. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Thu 1 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
Where did I insult tyou in my last post then?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).[/p][/quote]Where did I insult tyou in my last post then? tbpoole
  • Score: 1

3:15pm Thu 1 May 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper!

So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible"

as

"fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"

but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with"

I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads.

Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities.

Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,'
Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).[/p][/quote]'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to. Rally
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper!

So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible"

as

"fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence"

but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with"

I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads.

Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities.

Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,'
Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.
Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work.

How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities.

What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).[/p][/quote]'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.[/p][/quote]Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 1 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.
Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.
Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).[/p][/quote]'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.[/p][/quote]Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.[/p][/quote]Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

4:35pm Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.
Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.
Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets.
I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, instead of impartially by which are most effective against your stated objectives, fits the definition of corruption.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).[/p][/quote]'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.[/p][/quote]Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.[/p][/quote]Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, instead of impartially by which are most effective against your stated objectives, fits the definition of corruption. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Thu 1 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW! Minty Fresh
  • Score: 1

5:09pm Thu 1 May 14

Rally says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Hello Minty Fresh,

If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc.
What part of this do you not understand?
Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Hello Minty Fresh, If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc. What part of this do you not understand? Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed? Rally
  • Score: -1

6:24pm Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Hello Minty Fresh,

If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc.
What part of this do you not understand?
Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?
I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Hello Minty Fresh, If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc. What part of this do you not understand? Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?[/p][/quote]I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

6:51pm Thu 1 May 14

Rally says...

You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours.
You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours. Rally
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Thu 1 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours.
Another spurious and substanceless comment from you rally. Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see .
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours.[/p][/quote]Another spurious and substanceless comment from you rally. Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see . dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:52pm Thu 1 May 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours.
Another spurious and substanceless comment from you rally. Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see .
'Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see.'
Goodness me, a conspiracy theorist is about to reveal The Truth . . .
One can hardly wait.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours.[/p][/quote]Another spurious and substanceless comment from you rally. Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see .[/p][/quote]'Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see.' Goodness me, a conspiracy theorist is about to reveal The Truth . . . One can hardly wait. Rally
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Thu 1 May 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Where is your evidence. Everything you have stated here is purely your opinion and based on nothing other than anecdotes, not FACTS.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Where is your evidence. Everything you have stated here is purely your opinion and based on nothing other than anecdotes, not FACTS. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Thu 1 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.
Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.
Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets.
I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, instead of impartially by which are most effective against your stated objectives, fits the definition of corruption.
Tosh.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).[/p][/quote]'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.[/p][/quote]Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.[/p][/quote]Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, instead of impartially by which are most effective against your stated objectives, fits the definition of corruption.[/p][/quote]Tosh. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Thu 1 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours.
Another spurious and substanceless comment from you rally. Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see .
AsI have said in previous posts I have little doubt that you have personally cost us taxpayers untold thousands in public money by endlessly pursuing your pointless campaigns.

I for one did not give my approval for you to waste public funds in this way and would like to seek a refund of my share please.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: You, dorsetspeed, are here making it abundantly clear why you are making so little, if any, progress with this dubious campaign of yours.[/p][/quote]Another spurious and substanceless comment from you rally. Actually I am making very good progress as you will soon see .[/p][/quote]AsI have said in previous posts I have little doubt that you have personally cost us taxpayers untold thousands in public money by endlessly pursuing your pointless campaigns. I for one did not give my approval for you to waste public funds in this way and would like to seek a refund of my share please. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

11:13pm Thu 1 May 14

Rally says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).
'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.
Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.
Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets.
I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, instead of impartially by which are most effective against your stated objectives, fits the definition of corruption.
Tosh.
Dorsetspeed wrote, I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, . . .'
Actually, dorsetspeed, I think you have just highlighted why speed cameras are a good thing.
Thanks to these wonderful devices hundreds (possibly thousands?) of people throughout the UK are gainfully employed, paying income tax, and paying National Insurance instead of being on the dole.
How can this possibly be a bad thing?
You, dorsetspeed' claim that the Police benefit financially from the speed cameras.
Well, we are forever being told that our Police Forces are undermanned because of Government cuts, so surely any monies going to the Police is a good thing?
My sincere thanks to all you motorists fined for speeding for helping to keep people off the dole and helping the Police with their need for funds - what a sterling bunch you are. ;) :)
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Trying to wriggle out of it tbpoole? You are just digging the hole deeper! So you are not just interpreting "keep your eyes on the road, look, anticipate, watch for hazards or where they may come from and use position, distance, and speed (often far below the limit) so that you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you, to make collision with anything virtually impossible" as "fine if you are a driver in a car and think you have the ability to stop on a sixpence" but also "car driver knows best/Top Gear rules' type of attitude " and "the rights of drivers to break limits they don't agree with" I have never commented about the rights or wrongs of obeying speed limits, other than to suggest that it would be good if laws were obeyed. And I have never said that we should have drag races and drifting etc. on public roads. Let me explain it again. My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money, and the dangers that result from such misguided activities. Childish name calling is childish (and slightly insulting).[/p][/quote]'My issue is the excuse of road safety given to making money,' Then please tell us, dorsetspeed, what uses this money is put to.[/p][/quote]Good question, I can only speculate as Dorset Police refuse to be transparent about it and in fact have refused for 3 years now (and far worse as I will soon explain). But what I do know is that without the course money, a number of members of Dorset Police / Road Unsafe, some of whom are involved in deciding on which types of enforcement activities are selected, would be out of work. How could this possibly not cloud their judgement? This basic conflict of interest is toxic and is the first time in the history of the police that members of the police have had a direct and personal interest in the financial income from police activities. What we have ended up with is an inevitable consequence of this.[/p][/quote]Yes, but by implicating involvement in corrupt activities, you are conjuring up a picture of this money going in to some sort of police holiday fund, or that someone is filling their own pockets.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, instead of impartially by which are most effective against your stated objectives, fits the definition of corruption.[/p][/quote]Tosh.[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed wrote, I think you will find that selecting activities from which you will personally benefit by job security, . . .' Actually, dorsetspeed, I think you have just highlighted why speed cameras are a good thing. Thanks to these wonderful devices hundreds (possibly thousands?) of people throughout the UK are gainfully employed, paying income tax, and paying National Insurance instead of being on the dole. How can this possibly be a bad thing? You, dorsetspeed' claim that the Police benefit financially from the speed cameras. Well, we are forever being told that our Police Forces are undermanned because of Government cuts, so surely any monies going to the Police is a good thing? My sincere thanks to all you motorists fined for speeding for helping to keep people off the dole and helping the Police with their need for funds - what a sterling bunch you are. ;) :) Rally
  • Score: 0

6:44am Fri 2 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

No tb, it's not "tosh":

"Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority."

http://www.transpare
ncy.org.uk/corruptio
n

And it is Dorset Police, not me, who have turned what should have been a 5 minute task to answer a simple question "could you tell me the course costs and what makes this up" into a 3 year farce involving (and also as I will demonstrate corrupting) a list of public organisations too long to list here, and what I understand to be a 400 page report which I will have access to very soon. I agree, this is wasteful, absurd and unacceptable.

Rally, I don't think your are being serious but it's difficult to tell with the kind of argumentative nonsense you, tb and bb (and that's about it) come up with. Or have you switched sides and you're just being sarcastic?

Anyway, perhaps it would be even better if the police extracted money from the public at knifepoint? Do I really need to point out to you that our police forces need to be HONEST? So if they are operating cameras to keep themselves in work, they must state it, and not lie by telling us they do it for our safety - a fundamental point I have been making for a long time.
No tb, it's not "tosh": "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n And it is Dorset Police, not me, who have turned what should have been a 5 minute task to answer a simple question "could you tell me the course costs and what makes this up" into a 3 year farce involving (and also as I will demonstrate corrupting) a list of public organisations too long to list here, and what I understand to be a 400 page report which I will have access to very soon. I agree, this is wasteful, absurd and unacceptable. Rally, I don't think your are being serious but it's difficult to tell with the kind of argumentative nonsense you, tb and bb (and that's about it) come up with. Or have you switched sides and you're just being sarcastic? Anyway, perhaps it would be even better if the police extracted money from the public at knifepoint? Do I really need to point out to you that our police forces need to be HONEST? So if they are operating cameras to keep themselves in work, they must state it, and not lie by telling us they do it for our safety - a fundamental point I have been making for a long time. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:36am Fri 2 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
No tb, it's not "tosh":

"Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority."

http://www.transpare

ncy.org.uk/corruptio

n

And it is Dorset Police, not me, who have turned what should have been a 5 minute task to answer a simple question "could you tell me the course costs and what makes this up" into a 3 year farce involving (and also as I will demonstrate corrupting) a list of public organisations too long to list here, and what I understand to be a 400 page report which I will have access to very soon. I agree, this is wasteful, absurd and unacceptable.

Rally, I don't think your are being serious but it's difficult to tell with the kind of argumentative nonsense you, tb and bb (and that's about it) come up with. Or have you switched sides and you're just being sarcastic?

Anyway, perhaps it would be even better if the police extracted money from the public at knifepoint? Do I really need to point out to you that our police forces need to be HONEST? So if they are operating cameras to keep themselves in work, they must state it, and not lie by telling us they do it for our safety - a fundamental point I have been making for a long time.
If they really wanted to operate cameras to keep themselves in work I'm sure a business case could be made to have one on virtually every road, not just the 25 or so sites listed at the top of the article.

Oh and why do you always come over as pompous and condescending in all of your posts....must reflect your true character I suppose?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No tb, it's not "tosh": "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n And it is Dorset Police, not me, who have turned what should have been a 5 minute task to answer a simple question "could you tell me the course costs and what makes this up" into a 3 year farce involving (and also as I will demonstrate corrupting) a list of public organisations too long to list here, and what I understand to be a 400 page report which I will have access to very soon. I agree, this is wasteful, absurd and unacceptable. Rally, I don't think your are being serious but it's difficult to tell with the kind of argumentative nonsense you, tb and bb (and that's about it) come up with. Or have you switched sides and you're just being sarcastic? Anyway, perhaps it would be even better if the police extracted money from the public at knifepoint? Do I really need to point out to you that our police forces need to be HONEST? So if they are operating cameras to keep themselves in work, they must state it, and not lie by telling us they do it for our safety - a fundamental point I have been making for a long time.[/p][/quote]If they really wanted to operate cameras to keep themselves in work I'm sure a business case could be made to have one on virtually every road, not just the 25 or so sites listed at the top of the article. Oh and why do you always come over as pompous and condescending in all of your posts....must reflect your true character I suppose? tbpoole
  • Score: -1

9:15am Fri 2 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
No tb, it's not "tosh":

"Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority."

http://www.transpare


ncy.org.uk/corruptio


n

And it is Dorset Police, not me, who have turned what should have been a 5 minute task to answer a simple question "could you tell me the course costs and what makes this up" into a 3 year farce involving (and also as I will demonstrate corrupting) a list of public organisations too long to list here, and what I understand to be a 400 page report which I will have access to very soon. I agree, this is wasteful, absurd and unacceptable.

Rally, I don't think your are being serious but it's difficult to tell with the kind of argumentative nonsense you, tb and bb (and that's about it) come up with. Or have you switched sides and you're just being sarcastic?

Anyway, perhaps it would be even better if the police extracted money from the public at knifepoint? Do I really need to point out to you that our police forces need to be HONEST? So if they are operating cameras to keep themselves in work, they must state it, and not lie by telling us they do it for our safety - a fundamental point I have been making for a long time.
If they really wanted to operate cameras to keep themselves in work I'm sure a business case could be made to have one on virtually every road, not just the 25 or so sites listed at the top of the article.

Oh and why do you always come over as pompous and condescending in all of your posts....must reflect your true character I suppose?
Bank robbers make profit robbing banks, but they can't rob every bank every day, they won't get away with it.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No tb, it's not "tosh": "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority." http://www.transpare ncy.org.uk/corruptio n And it is Dorset Police, not me, who have turned what should have been a 5 minute task to answer a simple question "could you tell me the course costs and what makes this up" into a 3 year farce involving (and also as I will demonstrate corrupting) a list of public organisations too long to list here, and what I understand to be a 400 page report which I will have access to very soon. I agree, this is wasteful, absurd and unacceptable. Rally, I don't think your are being serious but it's difficult to tell with the kind of argumentative nonsense you, tb and bb (and that's about it) come up with. Or have you switched sides and you're just being sarcastic? Anyway, perhaps it would be even better if the police extracted money from the public at knifepoint? Do I really need to point out to you that our police forces need to be HONEST? So if they are operating cameras to keep themselves in work, they must state it, and not lie by telling us they do it for our safety - a fundamental point I have been making for a long time.[/p][/quote]If they really wanted to operate cameras to keep themselves in work I'm sure a business case could be made to have one on virtually every road, not just the 25 or so sites listed at the top of the article. Oh and why do you always come over as pompous and condescending in all of your posts....must reflect your true character I suppose?[/p][/quote]Bank robbers make profit robbing banks, but they can't rob every bank every day, they won't get away with it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:00am Fri 2 May 14

Emery says...

Why don't the echo give us the positions of all police personnel so we know which areas are best to commit crime in :)
Why don't the echo give us the positions of all police personnel so we know which areas are best to commit crime in :) Emery
  • Score: 1

11:02am Fri 2 May 14

Dorset Logic says...

Are they mad? Some of those locations have 4" curb stones where an officer could trip up and make a claim.
Are they mad? Some of those locations have 4" curb stones where an officer could trip up and make a claim. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 1

11:03am Fri 2 May 14

Dorset Logic says...

Emery wrote:
Why don't the echo give us the positions of all police personnel so we know which areas are best to commit crime in :)
Poole police station is a good place with a low officer count
[quote][p][bold]Emery[/bold] wrote: Why don't the echo give us the positions of all police personnel so we know which areas are best to commit crime in :)[/p][/quote]Poole police station is a good place with a low officer count Dorset Logic
  • Score: 1

8:18pm Fri 2 May 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Hello Minty Fresh,

If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc.
What part of this do you not understand?
Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?
I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught
Yeah, a good way to avoid being caught if you're going too fast is to kill yourself? That, tragically, is my understanding of what happened to the motorcyclist on the Cooper Dean? What can the average motorist not grasp about that fact? Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Hello Minty Fresh, If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc. What part of this do you not understand? Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?[/p][/quote]I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught[/p][/quote]Yeah, a good way to avoid being caught if you're going too fast is to kill yourself? That, tragically, is my understanding of what happened to the motorcyclist on the Cooper Dean? What can the average motorist not grasp about that fact? Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed? breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

8:41pm Fri 2 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Hello Minty Fresh,

If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc.
What part of this do you not understand?
Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?
I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught
Yeah, a good way to avoid being caught if you're going too fast is to kill yourself? That, tragically, is my understanding of what happened to the motorcyclist on the Cooper Dean? What can the average motorist not grasp about that fact? Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?
yes breamoreboy, he decided he didn't want a speeding ticket so he killed himself. Whatever.

"Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?"

What?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Hello Minty Fresh, If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc. What part of this do you not understand? Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?[/p][/quote]I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught[/p][/quote]Yeah, a good way to avoid being caught if you're going too fast is to kill yourself? That, tragically, is my understanding of what happened to the motorcyclist on the Cooper Dean? What can the average motorist not grasp about that fact? Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?[/p][/quote]yes breamoreboy, he decided he didn't want a speeding ticket so he killed himself. Whatever. "Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?" What? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Fri 2 May 14

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Hello Minty Fresh,

If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc.
What part of this do you not understand?
Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?
I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught
Yeah, a good way to avoid being caught if you're going too fast is to kill yourself? That, tragically, is my understanding of what happened to the motorcyclist on the Cooper Dean? What can the average motorist not grasp about that fact? Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?
yes breamoreboy, he decided he didn't want a speeding ticket so he killed himself. Whatever.

"Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?"

What?
Hello Dorsetspeed,
I think you'll find that breamoreboy was being satirical, and rightly so, in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Hello Minty Fresh, If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc. What part of this do you not understand? Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?[/p][/quote]I can't see any indications that he doesn't understand that . You seem to be commenting on different issues to the ones he is commenting on. Actually, you only get fined etc if you are CAUGHT speeding, and those that want to speed excessively and dangerously can easily avoid being caught[/p][/quote]Yeah, a good way to avoid being caught if you're going too fast is to kill yourself? That, tragically, is my understanding of what happened to the motorcyclist on the Cooper Dean? What can the average motorist not grasp about that fact? Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?[/p][/quote]yes breamoreboy, he decided he didn't want a speeding ticket so he killed himself. Whatever. "Why do many motorists assume that they know best about the various speed?" What?[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, I think you'll find that breamoreboy was being satirical, and rightly so, in my opinion. Rally
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Sat 3 May 14

Townee says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
No need to patrol outside schools, they've already got that cash cow covered with the parking patrol car dishing out tickets ;)
Pity they don't turn up outside Hill Veiw school at home time. I went to pick up my grandaughter from there the other day and one moron was parked on the school yellow zigzag line and he was there from the time I parked until we went back to my car about 15 minutes. What gives these people the right to park there when they know it's illegal.
Get the camera car up there before someone is hurt, he even had the gall to have a sticker in his rear window new driver on board.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: No need to patrol outside schools, they've already got that cash cow covered with the parking patrol car dishing out tickets ;)[/p][/quote]Pity they don't turn up outside Hill Veiw school at home time. I went to pick up my grandaughter from there the other day and one moron was parked on the school yellow zigzag line and he was there from the time I parked until we went back to my car about 15 minutes. What gives these people the right to park there when they know it's illegal. Get the camera car up there before someone is hurt, he even had the gall to have a sticker in his rear window new driver on board. Townee
  • Score: 0

3:51pm Tue 6 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

Rally wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Hello Minty Fresh,

If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc.
What part of this do you not understand?
Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?
What part of this don't YOU understand? : Speed limits have been DELIBERATELY reduced to ridiculously low levels on high traffic volume roads that were designed for higher speed flow, purely in order for the DC$P to make money from as many motorists as possible.

Why do you NEVER see mobile speed traps on quiet country roads? Or on quiet side roads in urban areas? Even if there had been accidents there? Go figure Sherlock.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Hello Minty Fresh, If you exceed the posted speed limit, then you will be fined, etc. What part of this do you not understand? Or is it a case of your being a) unable to see a speed limit sign until you are passing it or b) not being always aware of your vehicle's speed?[/p][/quote]What part of this don't YOU understand? : Speed limits have been DELIBERATELY reduced to ridiculously low levels on high traffic volume roads that were designed for higher speed flow, purely in order for the DC$P to make money from as many motorists as possible. Why do you NEVER see mobile speed traps on quiet country roads? Or on quiet side roads in urban areas? Even if there had been accidents there? Go figure Sherlock. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 2

3:55pm Tue 6 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards.

The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW!
Where is your evidence. Everything you have stated here is purely your opinion and based on nothing other than anecdotes, not FACTS.
Incorrect. The inquest determined that the biker died as a result of losing control of his machine when he spotted a mobile speed trap at Cooper Dean. This verdict was based on eye witness testimony.

Mobile speed traps should be removed from our roads with immediate effect.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: tbpoole and breamoreboy... you're both entitled to your asinine opinions of course, but the plain and simple truth, that's recognised by the vast majority of motorists, is that the Dor$et $a£ety Camera Partner$hip are about raising cash for HM Treasury and local police and have little or nothing to do with improving driving standards. The motorcyclist killed near Cooper Dean three years ago died as a direct result of a mobile speed trap. I have witnessed countless incidences of motorists braking sharply when they see one EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SPEEDING! An instinctive and potentially dangerous response that can and has led to serious and fatal accidents. These parasites should be outlawed from our roads, end of. Motorists are being treated as cash cows at every turn and this needs to stop. NOW![/p][/quote]Where is your evidence. Everything you have stated here is purely your opinion and based on nothing other than anecdotes, not FACTS.[/p][/quote]Incorrect. The inquest determined that the biker died as a result of losing control of his machine when he spotted a mobile speed trap at Cooper Dean. This verdict was based on eye witness testimony. Mobile speed traps should be removed from our roads with immediate effect. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 1

4:04pm Tue 6 May 14

Minty Fresh says...

tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.
A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure.

And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP.
My, what a total nightmare you are, you have no real clue do you? Wasn't the bike rider primarily to blame for riding too fast in the first place then?

So are you effectively saying you can drive around recklessly everywhere but blame the presence of a speed camera if you have a crash?

Oh and how can you claim there are never cameras on rural roads? I travel around Dorset a lot and often see vans across the area.
The biker in question may have been travelling faster than the pathetic 50mph limit, but the inquest heard that he had been riding perfectly safely according to eye witnesses. He died solely as a result of that mobile speed trap.

Go drive around all the quiet roads of Dorset and tell me on how many of them you see a mobile speed trap set up. The clue that you won't see one is in the listings where they lurk. All busy roads. All with places to hide (like around a blind corner or half hidden in a lay-by.) All with a lower speed limit than necessary in order to snare as many motorists as possible.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.[/p][/quote]So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.[/p][/quote]A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure. And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP.[/p][/quote]My, what a total nightmare you are, you have no real clue do you? Wasn't the bike rider primarily to blame for riding too fast in the first place then? So are you effectively saying you can drive around recklessly everywhere but blame the presence of a speed camera if you have a crash? Oh and how can you claim there are never cameras on rural roads? I travel around Dorset a lot and often see vans across the area.[/p][/quote]The biker in question may have been travelling faster than the pathetic 50mph limit, but the inquest heard that he had been riding perfectly safely according to eye witnesses. He died solely as a result of that mobile speed trap. Go drive around all the quiet roads of Dorset and tell me on how many of them you see a mobile speed trap set up. The clue that you won't see one is in the listings where they lurk. All busy roads. All with places to hide (like around a blind corner or half hidden in a lay-by.) All with a lower speed limit than necessary in order to snare as many motorists as possible. Minty Fresh
  • Score: 1

10:15pm Tue 6 May 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Minty Fresh wrote:
Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that.
Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT!
Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day!
The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors.
I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling.
It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.
So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.
A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure.

And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP.
My, what a total nightmare you are, you have no real clue do you? Wasn't the bike rider primarily to blame for riding too fast in the first place then?

So are you effectively saying you can drive around recklessly everywhere but blame the presence of a speed camera if you have a crash?

Oh and how can you claim there are never cameras on rural roads? I travel around Dorset a lot and often see vans across the area.
The biker in question may have been travelling faster than the pathetic 50mph limit, but the inquest heard that he had been riding perfectly safely according to eye witnesses. He died solely as a result of that mobile speed trap.

Go drive around all the quiet roads of Dorset and tell me on how many of them you see a mobile speed trap set up. The clue that you won't see one is in the listings where they lurk. All busy roads. All with places to hide (like around a blind corner or half hidden in a lay-by.) All with a lower speed limit than necessary in order to snare as many motorists as possible.
You've just complained about 'hidden cameras' and yet at the site where the biker was killed it evidently wasn't hidden. If you are right about events here then perhaps the biker may have lived if the camera had been operating covertly.

I've looked at the list of camera sites again and most of the rural sites appear to be on existing national speed limit roads. The other ones are mainly on roads where the limit has always been 30mph.

It appears drivers are either too dim to realise what the posted limit is or simply not able to stick to it.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: Dor$et Road $a£e are a money making $cam, end of. We all know that. Why design and construct a dual carriageway for 70mph traffic flow (Wessex Way for example), install crash barriers decades AFTER completion and then deliberately reduce the speed limit to a ludicrous 50mph? The answer to that is simple: PROFIT! Why do we NEVER see those mobile $peed trap$ on quiet country roads where there have been fatalities? NO PROFIT of course! The volume of traffic doesn't justify paying a parasite to sit in a van there all day! The police want our respect and co-operation in every way, yet the powers that be do everything they can to alienate them from us by using them as nothing more than petty tax collectors. I want MY taxes to fund PROPER policing that focuses on catching REAL criminals and not a motorist who has strayed 5mph over an artificially reduced speed limit on a road designed for traffic flow 20mph higher than the "offender" was travelling. It's time for this sharp practice to be outlawed. Roads designed for 70mph travel should remain 70mph roads. Mobile speed traps should be placed at genuine accident black spots and not just situated on high volume roads with deliberately reduced speed limits. And it's time for Dor$et Road $a£e leaders to stop propping up their fat salaries by BRIBING people to take a patronising driver awareness course at over £100 a time.[/p][/quote]So you believe that it is acceptable to continue to drive at 70mph on the Wessex Way, a road that was built 50 ish years ago, despite the fact that the volume of traffic on it now is bound to be way higher than the original design allowed for.. Great thinking Bat Man.[/p][/quote]A typical response from a someone who cannot see the true motivations of the $afety $camera Partner$hip$. PROFIT! The Wessex Way was built in the early 70's and was designed for high speed traffic flow. e.g. 70mph. The road has had many improvements in recent years including the closure of the Queens Park roundabout, the CD flyover, better signage and crash barriers all the way to Ringwood. So it IS perfectly capable of dealing with increased vehicle numbers at 70mph. The reduction to 50mph was a deliberate measure by the DCSP and Council to catch motorists straying over this ridiculously low limit for financial reasons. Absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. In fact it has been PROVEN beyond all doubt that mobile speed traps can cause FATAL accidents. Three years ago a motorcyclist died near Cooper Dean as a result of seeing a van at the side of the road, braking and losing control of his machine. Well done DSCP on being partly responsible for killing a man. These parasites should be removed from our roads with immediate effect and the money saved put toward better policing and road infrastructure. And regarding the unfortunate motorcyclist, I remember a number of commenters on here having their posts removed when they dared to say that the siting of that DCSP van had been the main reason for the man's demise. Very very poor of the Echo to do that when their reporters and Editor at the time KNEW full well what had happened and who was mostly to blame. Shame on all at Richmond Hill for censoring the truth and shame on the DCSP.[/p][/quote]My, what a total nightmare you are, you have no real clue do you? Wasn't the bike rider primarily to blame for riding too fast in the first place then? So are you effectively saying you can drive around recklessly everywhere but blame the presence of a speed camera if you have a crash? Oh and how can you claim there are never cameras on rural roads? I travel around Dorset a lot and often see vans across the area.[/p][/quote]The biker in question may have been travelling faster than the pathetic 50mph limit, but the inquest heard that he had been riding perfectly safely according to eye witnesses. He died solely as a result of that mobile speed trap. Go drive around all the quiet roads of Dorset and tell me on how many of them you see a mobile speed trap set up. The clue that you won't see one is in the listings where they lurk. All busy roads. All with places to hide (like around a blind corner or half hidden in a lay-by.) All with a lower speed limit than necessary in order to snare as many motorists as possible.[/p][/quote]You've just complained about 'hidden cameras' and yet at the site where the biker was killed it evidently wasn't hidden. If you are right about events here then perhaps the biker may have lived if the camera had been operating covertly. I've looked at the list of camera sites again and most of the rural sites appear to be on existing national speed limit roads. The other ones are mainly on roads where the limit has always been 30mph. It appears drivers are either too dim to realise what the posted limit is or simply not able to stick to it. tbpoole
  • Score: -1

8:16am Wed 7 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, I think you will find that the vast majority of drivers exceed the limit at some point on every journey. This is what happens when limits are set too low. Some drivers are dim, some are unable to stick to limits, but as knowing what the safe speed is is a fundamental part of normal driving within the limit (or every driver would crash on every journey) I think most drivers are simply using this good judgement all the time and it is a great shame that the law conflicts with this good judgement and the police then exploit it to make money, introducing danger in the process.

Yes, you could have widespread, covert, zero tolerance speed enforcement but the country would be out of business in a week, and then you would have true anarchy and many more deaths.

As you think "speeding" is such an important issue, presumably you would be very keen on automatic speed regulation in vehicles? It would be easy now that satnav technology and map data are available. It is clear that the public can't be trusted with driving at the right speed and that the actions of the police aren't helping much with this. Why not remove the choice from drivers to speed? No one would worry about multi-£million businesses going bust overnight would they because it's all about safety?
tbpoole, I think you will find that the vast majority of drivers exceed the limit at some point on every journey. This is what happens when limits are set too low. Some drivers are dim, some are unable to stick to limits, but as knowing what the safe speed is is a fundamental part of normal driving within the limit (or every driver would crash on every journey) I think most drivers are simply using this good judgement all the time and it is a great shame that the law conflicts with this good judgement and the police then exploit it to make money, introducing danger in the process. Yes, you could have widespread, covert, zero tolerance speed enforcement but the country would be out of business in a week, and then you would have true anarchy and many more deaths. As you think "speeding" is such an important issue, presumably you would be very keen on automatic speed regulation in vehicles? It would be easy now that satnav technology and map data are available. It is clear that the public can't be trusted with driving at the right speed and that the actions of the police aren't helping much with this. Why not remove the choice from drivers to speed? No one would worry about multi-£million businesses going bust overnight would they because it's all about safety? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Wed 7 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, I think you will find that the vast majority of drivers exceed the limit at some point on every journey. This is what happens when limits are set too low. Some drivers are dim, some are unable to stick to limits, but as knowing what the safe speed is is a fundamental part of normal driving within the limit (or every driver would crash on every journey) I think most drivers are simply using this good judgement all the time and it is a great shame that the law conflicts with this good judgement and the police then exploit it to make money, introducing danger in the process. Yes, you could have widespread, covert, zero tolerance speed enforcement but the country would be out of business in a week, and then you would have true anarchy and many more deaths. As you think "speeding" is such an important issue, presumably you would be very keen on automatic speed regulation in vehicles? It would be easy now that satnav technology and map data are available. It is clear that the public can't be trusted with driving at the right speed and that the actions of the police aren't helping much with this. Why not remove the choice from drivers to speed? No one would worry about multi-£million businesses going bust overnight would they because it's all about safety?
It's called intelligent speed adaptation and it has been around for years.

You still have this notion that there is a 'safe speed' independent of the speed limit which is down to the driver to select. Trouble is there are bound to be so many interpretations of what this speed might be due to widely different driver ability, hence the need for a limit that everyone can abide by.

Plus a pedestrian crossing the road might reasonably expect that a driver will stick to the limit as I would imagine children in particular find it difficult to judge the speed of an approaching vehicle.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, I think you will find that the vast majority of drivers exceed the limit at some point on every journey. This is what happens when limits are set too low. Some drivers are dim, some are unable to stick to limits, but as knowing what the safe speed is is a fundamental part of normal driving within the limit (or every driver would crash on every journey) I think most drivers are simply using this good judgement all the time and it is a great shame that the law conflicts with this good judgement and the police then exploit it to make money, introducing danger in the process. Yes, you could have widespread, covert, zero tolerance speed enforcement but the country would be out of business in a week, and then you would have true anarchy and many more deaths. As you think "speeding" is such an important issue, presumably you would be very keen on automatic speed regulation in vehicles? It would be easy now that satnav technology and map data are available. It is clear that the public can't be trusted with driving at the right speed and that the actions of the police aren't helping much with this. Why not remove the choice from drivers to speed? No one would worry about multi-£million businesses going bust overnight would they because it's all about safety?[/p][/quote]It's called intelligent speed adaptation and it has been around for years. You still have this notion that there is a 'safe speed' independent of the speed limit which is down to the driver to select. Trouble is there are bound to be so many interpretations of what this speed might be due to widely different driver ability, hence the need for a limit that everyone can abide by. Plus a pedestrian crossing the road might reasonably expect that a driver will stick to the limit as I would imagine children in particular find it difficult to judge the speed of an approaching vehicle. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

5:41pm Wed 7 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

Yes there is a safe speed to drive at, as I mentioned before, it is the speed at which you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. This safe speed at any location is dependant on a very large number of factors (including of course whether or not there are children around, or anything that could be obscuring them), and changes day to day,hour to hour and minute to minute, even second to second. It cannot possibly be defined by a fixed number along a stretch of road.

Anyone driving strictly at the limit regardless of anything else will obviously crash in no time. So this shows that the vast majority of drivers are in fact capable of judging the correct speed independent of what the limit may be.

Speed limits are necessary and they are pointless unless they are enforced, the problem is, their contribution to road safety and dependence on them has ended up being massively exaggerated because of the financial motivations, at the cost of balanced, intelligent, honest and effective road safety work.
Yes there is a safe speed to drive at, as I mentioned before, it is the speed at which you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. This safe speed at any location is dependant on a very large number of factors (including of course whether or not there are children around, or anything that could be obscuring them), and changes day to day,hour to hour and minute to minute, even second to second. It cannot possibly be defined by a fixed number along a stretch of road. Anyone driving strictly at the limit regardless of anything else will obviously crash in no time. So this shows that the vast majority of drivers are in fact capable of judging the correct speed independent of what the limit may be. Speed limits are necessary and they are pointless unless they are enforced, the problem is, their contribution to road safety and dependence on them has ended up being massively exaggerated because of the financial motivations, at the cost of balanced, intelligent, honest and effective road safety work. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

6:59pm Wed 7 May 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Yes there is a safe speed to drive at, as I mentioned before, it is the speed at which you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. This safe speed at any location is dependant on a very large number of factors (including of course whether or not there are children around, or anything that could be obscuring them), and changes day to day,hour to hour and minute to minute, even second to second. It cannot possibly be defined by a fixed number along a stretch of road.

Anyone driving strictly at the limit regardless of anything else will obviously crash in no time. So this shows that the vast majority of drivers are in fact capable of judging the correct speed independent of what the limit may be.

Speed limits are necessary and they are pointless unless they are enforced, the problem is, their contribution to road safety and dependence on them has ended up being massively exaggerated because of the financial motivations, at the cost of balanced, intelligent, honest and effective road safety work.
All I would say in response is it's a limit NOT a target.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Yes there is a safe speed to drive at, as I mentioned before, it is the speed at which you can stop safely within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. This safe speed at any location is dependant on a very large number of factors (including of course whether or not there are children around, or anything that could be obscuring them), and changes day to day,hour to hour and minute to minute, even second to second. It cannot possibly be defined by a fixed number along a stretch of road. Anyone driving strictly at the limit regardless of anything else will obviously crash in no time. So this shows that the vast majority of drivers are in fact capable of judging the correct speed independent of what the limit may be. Speed limits are necessary and they are pointless unless they are enforced, the problem is, their contribution to road safety and dependence on them has ended up being massively exaggerated because of the financial motivations, at the cost of balanced, intelligent, honest and effective road safety work.[/p][/quote]All I would say in response is it's a limit NOT a target. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

6:39pm Thu 8 May 14

MadMatandWe2 says...

It is not speed that kills, it is speed at the wrong time, in the wrong place.

The latter two points have a single commonality; Bad Driver.

The main issue with speed cameras is they do not capture bad drivers, they just capture people driving above the speed limit at any single time. 80mph on a clear, dry, well lit dual carriageway with little or no traffic is not dangerous. 50mph on the same stretch of road on the same day is VERY dangerous in a defective vehicle / driving under the influence of drink/drugs / driving with no concern for anybody else on the road etc.
But the person who gets fined is the former, the person who SHOULD get fined, and even taken off of the road, is the latter.

Police Patrol vehicles is what is needed with the Mark I Eyeball.

The problem is that the revenue generated by Speed Cameras does NOT finance Police highway patrol vehicles.

Let's get dangerous, drunk, drugged, and irresponsible drivers off the roads, not good drivers driving safely at speed in a safe situation.
It is not speed that kills, it is speed at the wrong time, in the wrong place. The latter two points have a single commonality; Bad Driver. The main issue with speed cameras is they do not capture bad drivers, they just capture people driving above the speed limit at any single time. 80mph on a clear, dry, well lit dual carriageway with little or no traffic is not dangerous. 50mph on the same stretch of road on the same day is VERY dangerous in a defective vehicle / driving under the influence of drink/drugs / driving with no concern for anybody else on the road etc. But the person who gets fined is the former, the person who SHOULD get fined, and even taken off of the road, is the latter. Police Patrol vehicles is what is needed with the Mark I Eyeball. The problem is that the revenue generated by Speed Cameras does NOT finance Police highway patrol vehicles. Let's get dangerous, drunk, drugged, and irresponsible drivers off the roads, not good drivers driving safely at speed in a safe situation. MadMatandWe2
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree