Guilty: man who drove along Dorset Way at 120mph while police struggled to keep up

Guilty: man who drove along Dorset Way at 120mph while police struggled to keep up

Guilty: man who drove along Dorset Way at 120mph while police struggled to keep up

First published in News
Last updated
by

AN aircraft technician drove along Dorset Way in Poole at speeds exceeding 120 miles per hour, a court heard.

Daniel Matthew Geer, 21, was spotted by police speeding in an imported Japanese sports car “designed for speed” on the roads around Tower Park at around 10.30pm on March 5.

Prosecutor Lee Turner told Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court that Geer was pursued by officers in a marked armed response car, although they didn’t activate their lights immediately.

“The officer said he saw a small white hatchback travelling at what seemed to be excess speed, with a lot of noise coming from the exhaust,” he said.

He said the police struggled to keep up with Geer, whose speed in Ringwood Road, where the limit is 40mph, exceeded 70mph.

Once on the Dorset Way, with a 50mph limit, he exceeded 120mph. He stopped in Oakdale Road when the police activated their lights, and later pleaded guilty to speeding.

The court heard Geer, of Bailey Crescent, Poole, already had points for a speeding offence on his licence.

In mitigation, Mike Flynn said: “He does accept he has been incredibly foolish.

“He was driving a Japanese import car clearly designed for speed.

“The car has been taken away by his parents, and when he gets his driving licence back he won’t be able to have a high performance car like that.”

He said Geer, an assistant aircraft technician based at Bournemouth Airport, was sorry for his actions and would not trouble the court again.

The magistrates, who said Geer had been lucky to avoid a fatal crash, banned him from driving for 40 days and imposed a £185 fine, £85 costs and £20 victim surcharge.

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:39am Fri 30 May 14

Lord Parkstone says...

What a joke.banned for forty days for driving like an idiot. Wondering how he managed to insure an imported car designed for speed when he already had points for speeding.
Its idiots like this that bump up the insurance for us all as always tarring everyone with the same brush.
What a joke.banned for forty days for driving like an idiot. Wondering how he managed to insure an imported car designed for speed when he already had points for speeding. Its idiots like this that bump up the insurance for us all as always tarring everyone with the same brush. Lord Parkstone
  • Score: 87

7:05am Fri 30 May 14

rudestickers says...

Any Fast and Furious Wannabee's should get their arses to a Run What You Brung day at a Race Track. Speed Kills! Sounds like a bit of a D&&k to me, 21 and his parents still wipe his bum by the sounds of things. Grow Up little boy.
Any Fast and Furious Wannabee's should get their arses to a Run What You Brung day at a Race Track. Speed Kills! Sounds like a bit of a D&&k to me, 21 and his parents still wipe his bum by the sounds of things. Grow Up little boy. rudestickers
  • Score: 48

7:25am Fri 30 May 14

master plan says...

Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed? master plan
  • Score: 18

7:37am Fri 30 May 14

Teddy 1 says...

He obviously didnt learn from points the first time around and will be back driving soon. Hope he tells his employers as i guess he now has a criminal record. Would have liked to seen a short prison sentence here...short sharp shock. next time we read about him I hope it isnt because he killed some innocent person on the roads
He obviously didnt learn from points the first time around and will be back driving soon. Hope he tells his employers as i guess he now has a criminal record. Would have liked to seen a short prison sentence here...short sharp shock. next time we read about him I hope it isnt because he killed some innocent person on the roads Teddy 1
  • Score: 50

7:40am Fri 30 May 14

High Treason says...

Forty days, big deal and not much of a punishment. Maybe the parents insured the car in their name and added him as a named driver. 21, to much money, to little discipline and zero common sense.
Forty days, big deal and not much of a punishment. Maybe the parents insured the car in their name and added him as a named driver. 21, to much money, to little discipline and zero common sense. High Treason
  • Score: 60

7:51am Fri 30 May 14

djd says...

Never mind, his mummy and daddy have taken his toy away.
Never mind, his mummy and daddy have taken his toy away. djd
  • Score: 35

7:56am Fri 30 May 14

TimAFCB says...

He didn't hurt anyone and stopped when he was made aware of the Police behind him. The punishment is enough and I hope he learns from his mistake. As for the car - I would imagine most family saloons will reach 120mph but wouldn't make such great headlines.
He didn't hurt anyone and stopped when he was made aware of the Police behind him. The punishment is enough and I hope he learns from his mistake. As for the car - I would imagine most family saloons will reach 120mph but wouldn't make such great headlines. TimAFCB
  • Score: -41

8:00am Fri 30 May 14

boardsandphotos says...

master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
[quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 15

8:00am Fri 30 May 14

djd says...

No, he hurt no one but he blatantly disobeyed the speed limit to such an extent that had he been involved in even a slight accident the consequences would have been fatal, not only to him but probably to any other motorist involved.
I wouldn't fancy trying to play dodgems with a car travelling at that speed.
No, he hurt no one but he blatantly disobeyed the speed limit to such an extent that had he been involved in even a slight accident the consequences would have been fatal, not only to him but probably to any other motorist involved. I wouldn't fancy trying to play dodgems with a car travelling at that speed. djd
  • Score: 33

8:04am Fri 30 May 14

adspacebroker says...

I am astonished at the attitude of the WEAK magistrates!!! This idiot had already been detected speeding and now he gets a slap on the wrist for putting others at immense risk. He knew what he was doing which was not only speeding at more than twice the limit but trying to avoid Police. He should have had a 3 year ban and ordered to retake his test. I cant believe that the bench did not impose a 56 day ban which would automatically attract a retest, they are as guilty as he is!!!
I am astonished at the attitude of the WEAK magistrates!!! This idiot had already been detected speeding and now he gets a slap on the wrist for putting others at immense risk. He knew what he was doing which was not only speeding at more than twice the limit but trying to avoid Police. He should have had a 3 year ban and ordered to retake his test. I cant believe that the bench did not impose a 56 day ban which would automatically attract a retest, they are as guilty as he is!!! adspacebroker
  • Score: 45

8:10am Fri 30 May 14

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

The speed limit of 50mph on the Dorset Way leading down to the Bakers Arms is draconian. It has made the flow of traffic particularly on the slip roads problematic causing tailgating and bunching up of cars.

No doubt some geriatric bunch of councillors will lower it to 40mph as per the Wessex Way on non-existent statistical evidence that can be manipulated to suit their purpose. Then when the speed is lowered another job creation scheme for the Poole council highways department will be created.
The speed limit of 50mph on the Dorset Way leading down to the Bakers Arms is draconian. It has made the flow of traffic particularly on the slip roads problematic causing tailgating and bunching up of cars. No doubt some geriatric bunch of councillors will lower it to 40mph as per the Wessex Way on non-existent statistical evidence that can be manipulated to suit their purpose. Then when the speed is lowered another job creation scheme for the Poole council highways department will be created. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 23

8:36am Fri 30 May 14

pete woodley says...

Obviously has the right parents with the right connections and good legal friends.
Obviously has the right parents with the right connections and good legal friends. pete woodley
  • Score: 22

8:40am Fri 30 May 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Unless we start taking traffic offences seriously only then will road deaths and serious injury statistics decrease. Tougher sentences and an automatic re-test on all traffic offences!
Unless we start taking traffic offences seriously only then will road deaths and serious injury statistics decrease. Tougher sentences and an automatic re-test on all traffic offences! itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: 19

8:42am Fri 30 May 14

Teddy 1 says...

TimAFCB wrote:
He didn't hurt anyone and stopped when he was made aware of the Police behind him. The punishment is enough and I hope he learns from his mistake. As for the car - I would imagine most family saloons will reach 120mph but wouldn't make such great headlines.
He travelled at speed with a marked police car behind him for a considerable distance but assume he didnt see them so perhaps he was not driving with care and attention? One does have to ask the question of why the police were following him at speed in a built up area with no lights/siren on?
[quote][p][bold]TimAFCB[/bold] wrote: He didn't hurt anyone and stopped when he was made aware of the Police behind him. The punishment is enough and I hope he learns from his mistake. As for the car - I would imagine most family saloons will reach 120mph but wouldn't make such great headlines.[/p][/quote]He travelled at speed with a marked police car behind him for a considerable distance but assume he didnt see them so perhaps he was not driving with care and attention? One does have to ask the question of why the police were following him at speed in a built up area with no lights/siren on? Teddy 1
  • Score: 11

8:42am Fri 30 May 14

TimAFCB says...

He didn't try to avoid the Police. He was unaware they were there until they turned their lights on and at that point he stopped. He was punished for the offence he committed. You cannot punish someone on the potential for what they could have done. As I said before, I hope he learns from his mistake and does not do it again.
The 50mph limit on that road just doesn't work. You have 2 lanes of vehicles travelling side by side at 50mph in 2 long columns of traffic. When a car tries to join the road from a sliproad all the traffic has to brake and bunch up or switch lanes leading to problems in both lanes. The old 70mph limit allowed for people to do whatever speed they wished (50, 60 or 70mph) and created natural gaps in the traffic and stopped the bunching up effect.
He didn't try to avoid the Police. He was unaware they were there until they turned their lights on and at that point he stopped. He was punished for the offence he committed. You cannot punish someone on the potential for what they could have done. As I said before, I hope he learns from his mistake and does not do it again. The 50mph limit on that road just doesn't work. You have 2 lanes of vehicles travelling side by side at 50mph in 2 long columns of traffic. When a car tries to join the road from a sliproad all the traffic has to brake and bunch up or switch lanes leading to problems in both lanes. The old 70mph limit allowed for people to do whatever speed they wished (50, 60 or 70mph) and created natural gaps in the traffic and stopped the bunching up effect. TimAFCB
  • Score: -13

9:31am Fri 30 May 14

pete woodley says...

How can anyone justify the speed the idiot was doing.
How can anyone justify the speed the idiot was doing. pete woodley
  • Score: 13

9:32am Fri 30 May 14

breamoreboy says...

Good job there were no mobile police cameras around, he could have been killed. Not that I'd worry about him, I'm more concerned about the costs for the taxpayer who once again foot the bill to clean up the mess.
Good job there were no mobile police cameras around, he could have been killed. Not that I'd worry about him, I'm more concerned about the costs for the taxpayer who once again foot the bill to clean up the mess. breamoreboy
  • Score: 9

9:47am Fri 30 May 14

Wesoblind says...

Lord Parkstone wrote:
What a joke.banned for forty days for driving like an idiot. Wondering how he managed to insure an imported car designed for speed when he already had points for speeding.
Its idiots like this that bump up the insurance for us all as always tarring everyone with the same brush.
I can never condone 120 mph but speeding does not bump up insurance, incompetant drivers do that have crashes like tailgaters that smack in the back of someone or people that cut someone up and hit them.
Yes speeding can be dangerous but the worst thing on the road by far is incompetant, hesitant and inconsiderate drivers.
I have always driven to the road conditions and somtimes that would include speeding! Ive had over the years 20 points plus and been banned for six months before but i have never had a crash, or lost control of a car. Ive owned some high powered cars and they are much safer in the hands of a competent driver. So bad drivers are the problem nothing more nothing less.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Parkstone[/bold] wrote: What a joke.banned for forty days for driving like an idiot. Wondering how he managed to insure an imported car designed for speed when he already had points for speeding. Its idiots like this that bump up the insurance for us all as always tarring everyone with the same brush.[/p][/quote]I can never condone 120 mph but speeding does not bump up insurance, incompetant drivers do that have crashes like tailgaters that smack in the back of someone or people that cut someone up and hit them. Yes speeding can be dangerous but the worst thing on the road by far is incompetant, hesitant and inconsiderate drivers. I have always driven to the road conditions and somtimes that would include speeding! Ive had over the years 20 points plus and been banned for six months before but i have never had a crash, or lost control of a car. Ive owned some high powered cars and they are much safer in the hands of a competent driver. So bad drivers are the problem nothing more nothing less. Wesoblind
  • Score: -10

9:57am Fri 30 May 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

I expect I would have been done for 80 in a 30 in my metro.
Luckily nobody saw me as it was dark and very very foggy.
I expect I would have been done for 80 in a 30 in my metro. Luckily nobody saw me as it was dark and very very foggy. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -6

10:15am Fri 30 May 14

scrumpyjack says...

Wesoblind wrote:
Lord Parkstone wrote:
What a joke.banned for forty days for driving like an idiot. Wondering how he managed to insure an imported car designed for speed when he already had points for speeding.
Its idiots like this that bump up the insurance for us all as always tarring everyone with the same brush.
I can never condone 120 mph but speeding does not bump up insurance, incompetant drivers do that have crashes like tailgaters that smack in the back of someone or people that cut someone up and hit them.
Yes speeding can be dangerous but the worst thing on the road by far is incompetant, hesitant and inconsiderate drivers.
I have always driven to the road conditions and somtimes that would include speeding! Ive had over the years 20 points plus and been banned for six months before but i have never had a crash, or lost control of a car. Ive owned some high powered cars and they are much safer in the hands of a competent driver. So bad drivers are the problem nothing more nothing less.
ditto
[quote][p][bold]Wesoblind[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Parkstone[/bold] wrote: What a joke.banned for forty days for driving like an idiot. Wondering how he managed to insure an imported car designed for speed when he already had points for speeding. Its idiots like this that bump up the insurance for us all as always tarring everyone with the same brush.[/p][/quote]I can never condone 120 mph but speeding does not bump up insurance, incompetant drivers do that have crashes like tailgaters that smack in the back of someone or people that cut someone up and hit them. Yes speeding can be dangerous but the worst thing on the road by far is incompetant, hesitant and inconsiderate drivers. I have always driven to the road conditions and somtimes that would include speeding! Ive had over the years 20 points plus and been banned for six months before but i have never had a crash, or lost control of a car. Ive owned some high powered cars and they are much safer in the hands of a competent driver. So bad drivers are the problem nothing more nothing less.[/p][/quote]ditto scrumpyjack
  • Score: -5

11:02am Fri 30 May 14

master plan says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right. master plan
  • Score: 5

11:17am Fri 30 May 14

speedy231278 says...

Why did the Police not pull him immediately for 70 in a 40? Is it because that's a lesser offence and they were hoping that he was indeed stupid enough to go much faster so they could get a better conviction for the magical 'more than double the limit' which triggers an automatic ban?

If they cared about people speeding as opposed to revenue, they'd have nicked him straight away and not waited to see what happened. What would the IPCC say if he'd caused a serious accident or a death while speeding at a higher rate under the watchful eye of the law?
Why did the Police not pull him immediately for 70 in a 40? Is it because that's a lesser offence and they were hoping that he was indeed stupid enough to go much faster so they could get a better conviction for the magical 'more than double the limit' which triggers an automatic ban? If they cared about people speeding as opposed to revenue, they'd have nicked him straight away and not waited to see what happened. What would the IPCC say if he'd caused a serious accident or a death while speeding at a higher rate under the watchful eye of the law? speedy231278
  • Score: -2

11:27am Fri 30 May 14

TimAFCB says...

speedy231278 wrote:
Why did the Police not pull him immediately for 70 in a 40? Is it because that's a lesser offence and they were hoping that he was indeed stupid enough to go much faster so they could get a better conviction for the magical 'more than double the limit' which triggers an automatic ban?

If they cared about people speeding as opposed to revenue, they'd have nicked him straight away and not waited to see what happened. What would the IPCC say if he'd caused a serious accident or a death while speeding at a higher rate under the watchful eye of the law?
If they were Traffic Police I'm sure they would have pulled him earlier. Armed Police probably didn't want to get tied up with a traffic offence instead of being on call from what they are trained to do. When he reached speeds of 120mph they really had to intervene, couldn't really turn a blind eye to that one!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why did the Police not pull him immediately for 70 in a 40? Is it because that's a lesser offence and they were hoping that he was indeed stupid enough to go much faster so they could get a better conviction for the magical 'more than double the limit' which triggers an automatic ban? If they cared about people speeding as opposed to revenue, they'd have nicked him straight away and not waited to see what happened. What would the IPCC say if he'd caused a serious accident or a death while speeding at a higher rate under the watchful eye of the law?[/p][/quote]If they were Traffic Police I'm sure they would have pulled him earlier. Armed Police probably didn't want to get tied up with a traffic offence instead of being on call from what they are trained to do. When he reached speeds of 120mph they really had to intervene, couldn't really turn a blind eye to that one! TimAFCB
  • Score: 12

11:59am Fri 30 May 14

Frank28 says...

The biggest shock for Mr Greer will be the eye-watering cost of his insurance premiums, assuming an insurance company will accept his risk.
The biggest shock for Mr Greer will be the eye-watering cost of his insurance premiums, assuming an insurance company will accept his risk. Frank28
  • Score: 12

12:07pm Fri 30 May 14

Stereotyped says...

master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Well said.

Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch
urch?

Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.
[quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Well said. Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch urch? Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver. Stereotyped
  • Score: 3

12:08pm Fri 30 May 14

boardsandphotos says...

master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Oh for goodness sake....

The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact.

We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident.

Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph.

Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed)
[quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake.... The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact. We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident. Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph. Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed) boardsandphotos
  • Score: 6

12:14pm Fri 30 May 14

boardsandphotos says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Oh for goodness sake....

The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact.

We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident.

Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph.

Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed)
*impact
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake.... The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact. We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident. Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph. Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed)[/p][/quote]*impact boardsandphotos
  • Score: 1

12:39pm Fri 30 May 14

speedy231278 says...

TimAFCB wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
Why did the Police not pull him immediately for 70 in a 40? Is it because that's a lesser offence and they were hoping that he was indeed stupid enough to go much faster so they could get a better conviction for the magical 'more than double the limit' which triggers an automatic ban?

If they cared about people speeding as opposed to revenue, they'd have nicked him straight away and not waited to see what happened. What would the IPCC say if he'd caused a serious accident or a death while speeding at a higher rate under the watchful eye of the law?
If they were Traffic Police I'm sure they would have pulled him earlier. Armed Police probably didn't want to get tied up with a traffic offence instead of being on call from what they are trained to do. When he reached speeds of 120mph they really had to intervene, couldn't really turn a blind eye to that one!
So, it's fine to do 70 in a 40 as long as it's not traffic coppers about?
[quote][p][bold]TimAFCB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: Why did the Police not pull him immediately for 70 in a 40? Is it because that's a lesser offence and they were hoping that he was indeed stupid enough to go much faster so they could get a better conviction for the magical 'more than double the limit' which triggers an automatic ban? If they cared about people speeding as opposed to revenue, they'd have nicked him straight away and not waited to see what happened. What would the IPCC say if he'd caused a serious accident or a death while speeding at a higher rate under the watchful eye of the law?[/p][/quote]If they were Traffic Police I'm sure they would have pulled him earlier. Armed Police probably didn't want to get tied up with a traffic offence instead of being on call from what they are trained to do. When he reached speeds of 120mph they really had to intervene, couldn't really turn a blind eye to that one![/p][/quote]So, it's fine to do 70 in a 40 as long as it's not traffic coppers about? speedy231278
  • Score: 3

12:40pm Fri 30 May 14

speedy231278 says...

Frank28 wrote:
The biggest shock for Mr Greer will be the eye-watering cost of his insurance premiums, assuming an insurance company will accept his risk.
Speeding won't affect it too much. If he has/gets a DD40 or whatever they call it these days, that'll cripple him for five years.
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: The biggest shock for Mr Greer will be the eye-watering cost of his insurance premiums, assuming an insurance company will accept his risk.[/p][/quote]Speeding won't affect it too much. If he has/gets a DD40 or whatever they call it these days, that'll cripple him for five years. speedy231278
  • Score: 6

12:42pm Fri 30 May 14

speedy231278 says...

Remember kids, speed does not kill. It's the sudden stop that does it, or being struck by an object with vast speed or momentum.
Remember kids, speed does not kill. It's the sudden stop that does it, or being struck by an object with vast speed or momentum. speedy231278
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Fri 30 May 14

seaviews says...

It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car.
It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car. seaviews
  • Score: 3

1:18pm Fri 30 May 14

W.M.Speck says...

looks like a Freemason Judgement to me
looks like a Freemason Judgement to me W.M.Speck
  • Score: 6

1:21pm Fri 30 May 14

Stereotyped says...

seaviews wrote:
It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car.
"Fronting"
[quote][p][bold]seaviews[/bold] wrote: It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car.[/p][/quote]"Fronting" Stereotyped
  • Score: 4

1:31pm Fri 30 May 14

Hessenford says...

seaviews wrote:
It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car.
If the car is in his parents name there is no fraud.
[quote][p][bold]seaviews[/bold] wrote: It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car.[/p][/quote]If the car is in his parents name there is no fraud. Hessenford
  • Score: 2

2:06pm Fri 30 May 14

breamoreboy says...

master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
If people got killed on train journeys and flying at the same rate that they get killed on the roads nobody would use either form of transport. The safety of Formula One racing has improved tremendously over the last 50 years, partly due to the sterling work of Sir Jackie Stewart. I'll repeat here what I said in another comment on this site just two days ago "You can be one of the finest members of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, but make one misjudgement at the wrong speed anywhere and it's very likely to be your last."
[quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]If people got killed on train journeys and flying at the same rate that they get killed on the roads nobody would use either form of transport. The safety of Formula One racing has improved tremendously over the last 50 years, partly due to the sterling work of Sir Jackie Stewart. I'll repeat here what I said in another comment on this site just two days ago "You can be one of the finest members of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, but make one misjudgement at the wrong speed anywhere and it's very likely to be your last." breamoreboy
  • Score: 8

2:48pm Fri 30 May 14

Stereotyped says...

Hessenford wrote:
seaviews wrote:
It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car.
If the car is in his parents name there is no fraud.
That is unless it can be proven otherwise that the parents don't even actually use the car/he is the main user of the vehicle...

In the likes of a modified Starlett Turbo/Glanza...I highly doubt that is the sort of car his parents would drive.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seaviews[/bold] wrote: It has been mentioned here but needs to be followed up the possibility of fraud in obtaining insurance in the first place with points on his license for a performance car.[/p][/quote]If the car is in his parents name there is no fraud.[/p][/quote]That is unless it can be proven otherwise that the parents don't even actually use the car/he is the main user of the vehicle... In the likes of a modified Starlett Turbo/Glanza...I highly doubt that is the sort of car his parents would drive. Stereotyped
  • Score: 3

4:57pm Fri 30 May 14

tbpoole says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Oh for goodness sake....

The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact.

We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident.

Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph.

Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed)
Agreed. Idiotic statement by master plan, straight out of the Top Gear mentality.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake.... The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact. We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident. Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph. Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed)[/p][/quote]Agreed. Idiotic statement by master plan, straight out of the Top Gear mentality. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Fri 30 May 14

stuartc73 says...

TimAFCB wrote:
He didn't try to avoid the Police. He was unaware they were there until they turned their lights on and at that point he stopped. He was punished for the offence he committed. You cannot punish someone on the potential for what they could have done. As I said before, I hope he learns from his mistake and does not do it again.
The 50mph limit on that road just doesn't work. You have 2 lanes of vehicles travelling side by side at 50mph in 2 long columns of traffic. When a car tries to join the road from a sliproad all the traffic has to brake and bunch up or switch lanes leading to problems in both lanes. The old 70mph limit allowed for people to do whatever speed they wished (50, 60 or 70mph) and created natural gaps in the traffic and stopped the bunching up effect.
"The 50mph limit on that road just doesn't work. You have 2 lanes of vehicles travelling side by side at 50mph in 2 long columns of traffic. When a car tries to join the road from a sliproad all the traffic has to brake and bunch up or switch lanes leading to problems in both lanes. The old 70mph limit allowed for people to do whatever speed they wished (50, 60 or 70mph) and created natural gaps in the traffic and stopped the bunching up effect."
Totally agreed. It is MORE dangerous now than it ever was. In fact if you try and sit at 50 mph (they are always police hidden cameras along there somewhere) someone will tailgate you dangerously before exceeding the speed limit anyway.
[quote][p][bold]TimAFCB[/bold] wrote: He didn't try to avoid the Police. He was unaware they were there until they turned their lights on and at that point he stopped. He was punished for the offence he committed. You cannot punish someone on the potential for what they could have done. As I said before, I hope he learns from his mistake and does not do it again. The 50mph limit on that road just doesn't work. You have 2 lanes of vehicles travelling side by side at 50mph in 2 long columns of traffic. When a car tries to join the road from a sliproad all the traffic has to brake and bunch up or switch lanes leading to problems in both lanes. The old 70mph limit allowed for people to do whatever speed they wished (50, 60 or 70mph) and created natural gaps in the traffic and stopped the bunching up effect.[/p][/quote]"The 50mph limit on that road just doesn't work. You have 2 lanes of vehicles travelling side by side at 50mph in 2 long columns of traffic. When a car tries to join the road from a sliproad all the traffic has to brake and bunch up or switch lanes leading to problems in both lanes. The old 70mph limit allowed for people to do whatever speed they wished (50, 60 or 70mph) and created natural gaps in the traffic and stopped the bunching up effect." Totally agreed. It is MORE dangerous now than it ever was. In fact if you try and sit at 50 mph (they are always police hidden cameras along there somewhere) someone will tailgate you dangerously before exceeding the speed limit anyway. stuartc73
  • Score: 4

6:32pm Fri 30 May 14

O'Reilly says...

adspacebroker wrote:
I am astonished at the attitude of the WEAK magistrates!!! This idiot had already been detected speeding and now he gets a slap on the wrist for putting others at immense risk. He knew what he was doing which was not only speeding at more than twice the limit but trying to avoid Police. He should have had a 3 year ban and ordered to retake his test. I cant believe that the bench did not impose a 56 day ban which would automatically attract a retest, they are as guilty as he is!!!
Maybe he is or his parents or his Daddee is 'connected' nowaimin?
[quote][p][bold]adspacebroker[/bold] wrote: I am astonished at the attitude of the WEAK magistrates!!! This idiot had already been detected speeding and now he gets a slap on the wrist for putting others at immense risk. He knew what he was doing which was not only speeding at more than twice the limit but trying to avoid Police. He should have had a 3 year ban and ordered to retake his test. I cant believe that the bench did not impose a 56 day ban which would automatically attract a retest, they are as guilty as he is!!![/p][/quote]Maybe he is or his parents or his Daddee is 'connected' nowaimin? O'Reilly
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Fri 30 May 14

FNS-man says...

Stereotyped wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Well said.

Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch

urch?

Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.
But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Well said. Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch urch? Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.[/p][/quote]But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed. FNS-man
  • Score: 4

12:20am Sat 31 May 14

Tictock says...

Money talks - enough said!
Money talks - enough said! Tictock
  • Score: 2

8:11am Sat 31 May 14

master plan says...

tbpoole wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Oh for goodness sake....

The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact.

We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident.

Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph.

Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed)
Agreed. Idiotic statement by master plan, straight out of the Top Gear mentality.
Well your wrong that was out of the telegraph.
People in here are having a good moan about some of the statements but truth be told we have all been done for speeding one time or another?

No I don't like the speed limits on Wessex way and Dorset way they breed traffic problems, it's funny that you can drive 60mph on single track country lanes with a chance of a head on crash yet roads built for speed you gotta slow down to 40 or 50?

I'm all for the motorways being 100mph but saying that people drive that fast anyway
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake.... The term 'Speed Kills' means the faster you are going the more likely you are to die in an accident, this is due to transference of power from motion to imact. We don't die from 'going fast' we die as a result of our bodies not being able to survive the resulting accident. Hitting a solid object at 30 mph would cause the human body less harm than repeating the same experiment at 70mph and then 120mph. Formula1 Cars are specifically designed to protect the driver during a high speed accident and completely different to normal road vehicles. (at a high speed)[/p][/quote]Agreed. Idiotic statement by master plan, straight out of the Top Gear mentality.[/p][/quote]Well your wrong that was out of the telegraph. People in here are having a good moan about some of the statements but truth be told we have all been done for speeding one time or another? No I don't like the speed limits on Wessex way and Dorset way they breed traffic problems, it's funny that you can drive 60mph on single track country lanes with a chance of a head on crash yet roads built for speed you gotta slow down to 40 or 50? I'm all for the motorways being 100mph but saying that people drive that fast anyway master plan
  • Score: -1

3:35pm Sat 31 May 14

Stereotyped says...

FNS-man wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Well said.

Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch


urch?

Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.
But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.
But what caused the accident...caused...
not what had a factor in the outcome.

That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Well said. Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch urch? Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.[/p][/quote]But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.[/p][/quote]But what caused the accident...caused... not what had a factor in the outcome. That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue. Stereotyped
  • Score: -1

7:31pm Sat 31 May 14

breamoreboy says...

Stereotyped wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Well said.

Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch



urch?

Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.
But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.
But what caused the accident...caused...

not what had a factor in the outcome.

That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.
If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph?
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Well said. Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch urch? Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.[/p][/quote]But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.[/p][/quote]But what caused the accident...caused... not what had a factor in the outcome. That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.[/p][/quote]If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Sat 31 May 14

canfordcherry says...

I would have thought Dorsetspeed would have been on here stating that it was the authorities fault that the speed limit isn't 120mph on this road as this would be a safe speed to drive at and that the armed response who tracked him and stopped him should have been attending a robbery or something and not using police resources to stop speeding lunatics.
Just a thought based on reading his other views on speeding (law breaking) on this stretch of road!
I would have thought Dorsetspeed would have been on here stating that it was the authorities fault that the speed limit isn't 120mph on this road as this would be a safe speed to drive at and that the armed response who tracked him and stopped him should have been attending a robbery or something and not using police resources to stop speeding lunatics. Just a thought based on reading his other views on speeding (law breaking) on this stretch of road! canfordcherry
  • Score: 3

8:17am Mon 2 Jun 14

Stereotyped says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Well said.

Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch




urch?

Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.
But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.
But what caused the accident...caused...


not what had a factor in the outcome.

That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.
If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph?
You're looking at it the wrong way though, which is typical for someone who is so focussed on speed alone.

The speed, no matter which way you look at it, is not the cause of the accident. In some cases it would be, or at least be a reason in it, i.e. tyre failure...but then speed alone isn't the cause then either, as it would be a defective tyre... but hey, I am trying to keep things simple for you so you understand.

The cause, in the point I made (and the point you just made too may I add) is not the speed. The ability to correct it at 50mph or 100mph is null and void in the argument because the cause of loss of control is a lack of competence, yes, even in a skilled driver.

There is a reason the likes of Lewis Hamilton could speed around all day and not crash compared to say your gran...
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Well said. Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch urch? Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.[/p][/quote]But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.[/p][/quote]But what caused the accident...caused... not what had a factor in the outcome. That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.[/p][/quote]If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph?[/p][/quote]You're looking at it the wrong way though, which is typical for someone who is so focussed on speed alone. The speed, no matter which way you look at it, is not the cause of the accident. In some cases it would be, or at least be a reason in it, i.e. tyre failure...but then speed alone isn't the cause then either, as it would be a defective tyre... but hey, I am trying to keep things simple for you so you understand. The cause, in the point I made (and the point you just made too may I add) is not the speed. The ability to correct it at 50mph or 100mph is null and void in the argument because the cause of loss of control is a lack of competence, yes, even in a skilled driver. There is a reason the likes of Lewis Hamilton could speed around all day and not crash compared to say your gran... Stereotyped
  • Score: 1

9:23am Mon 2 Jun 14

Dorset Logic says...

Speeding. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Speeding. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Dorset Logic
  • Score: -1

9:29am Mon 2 Jun 14

Dorset Logic says...

I think they need to bring back the man with the red flag walking in front of a car. It was better in my day when only the gentry could afford a car, and we all had to line up and doff our caps as the car passed. In those days everyone was so nice and polite, and you could eat battenburg cake without fear of people speeding in the middle of the night. I think if you do 30.5 MPH in a 30 zone you should be deported along with the rest of the people with non English sounding names. I think the youth of today should be employed sweeping chimneys and once they get to 16 years, they should also be deported. p.s. I have a good pension.

yours
Brigadier Fortescue Smyth Wilkinson (desc)
I think they need to bring back the man with the red flag walking in front of a car. It was better in my day when only the gentry could afford a car, and we all had to line up and doff our caps as the car passed. In those days everyone was so nice and polite, and you could eat battenburg cake without fear of people speeding in the middle of the night. I think if you do 30.5 MPH in a 30 zone you should be deported along with the rest of the people with non English sounding names. I think the youth of today should be employed sweeping chimneys and once they get to 16 years, they should also be deported. p.s. I have a good pension. yours Brigadier Fortescue Smyth Wilkinson (desc) Dorset Logic
  • Score: 1

12:38pm Mon 2 Jun 14

stevobath says...

I was 22 when I was banned & made to take retest when I was caught doing 120 on my RG 500 along the Spur Rd.

I'm amazed he got off so lightly, especially taking into account the kind of rds he was speeding on?

Judges definitely seemed a bit stricter when I was younger?
I was 22 when I was banned & made to take retest when I was caught doing 120 on my RG 500 along the Spur Rd. I'm amazed he got off so lightly, especially taking into account the kind of rds he was speeding on? Judges definitely seemed a bit stricter when I was younger? stevobath
  • Score: -1

9:08pm Tue 3 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Stereotyped wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Well said.

Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch





urch?

Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.
But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.
But what caused the accident...caused...



not what had a factor in the outcome.

That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.
If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph?
You're looking at it the wrong way though, which is typical for someone who is so focussed on speed alone.

The speed, no matter which way you look at it, is not the cause of the accident. In some cases it would be, or at least be a reason in it, i.e. tyre failure...but then speed alone isn't the cause then either, as it would be a defective tyre... but hey, I am trying to keep things simple for you so you understand.

The cause, in the point I made (and the point you just made too may I add) is not the speed. The ability to correct it at 50mph or 100mph is null and void in the argument because the cause of loss of control is a lack of competence, yes, even in a skilled driver.

There is a reason the likes of Lewis Hamilton could speed around all day and not crash compared to say your gran...
As you're clearly one of the world's leading experts on the subject would you please give your background. I've got an engineering degree and a fair smattering of common sense to go with it.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Well said. Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch urch? Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.[/p][/quote]But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.[/p][/quote]But what caused the accident...caused... not what had a factor in the outcome. That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.[/p][/quote]If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph?[/p][/quote]You're looking at it the wrong way though, which is typical for someone who is so focussed on speed alone. The speed, no matter which way you look at it, is not the cause of the accident. In some cases it would be, or at least be a reason in it, i.e. tyre failure...but then speed alone isn't the cause then either, as it would be a defective tyre... but hey, I am trying to keep things simple for you so you understand. The cause, in the point I made (and the point you just made too may I add) is not the speed. The ability to correct it at 50mph or 100mph is null and void in the argument because the cause of loss of control is a lack of competence, yes, even in a skilled driver. There is a reason the likes of Lewis Hamilton could speed around all day and not crash compared to say your gran...[/p][/quote]As you're clearly one of the world's leading experts on the subject would you please give your background. I've got an engineering degree and a fair smattering of common sense to go with it. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

8:44am Wed 4 Jun 14

Stereotyped says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
master plan wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
master plan wrote:
Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?
The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.
Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents?

I will say this tho

"Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.
Well said.

Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch






urch?

Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.
But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.
But what caused the accident...caused...




not what had a factor in the outcome.

That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.
If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph?
You're looking at it the wrong way though, which is typical for someone who is so focussed on speed alone.

The speed, no matter which way you look at it, is not the cause of the accident. In some cases it would be, or at least be a reason in it, i.e. tyre failure...but then speed alone isn't the cause then either, as it would be a defective tyre... but hey, I am trying to keep things simple for you so you understand.

The cause, in the point I made (and the point you just made too may I add) is not the speed. The ability to correct it at 50mph or 100mph is null and void in the argument because the cause of loss of control is a lack of competence, yes, even in a skilled driver.

There is a reason the likes of Lewis Hamilton could speed around all day and not crash compared to say your gran...
As you're clearly one of the world's leading experts on the subject would you please give your background. I've got an engineering degree and a fair smattering of common sense to go with it.
Oh my, how special... an engineering degree! That means what exactly? Certainly nothing to help with this topic, so a bit pointless pointing that out.

Shame your common sense isn't prevailing.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]master plan[/bold] wrote: Since the speed limit was change to 50mph on Dorset way I've seen more crashes is it a safer road speed?[/p][/quote]The more interesting question would be how many of those accidents occured where the vehicle was travelling faster than the legal limit of 50mph.[/p][/quote]Well if the road stayed to the national speed limit there would be less accidents? I will say this tho "Speeding kills" - well that's what all the sales pitches of the road safety industry say and the average TV presenter accepts it unreservedly. But on close examination it is of course complete nonsense. Speeding cannot kill. We all survive the 120mph train journey, the 500mph air journey, Formula One racing drivers mainly survive the season. What kills people every year are a very very few drivers, driving either dangerously or without due care. The vast majority of accidents happen at speeds at 15mph. Often in the manoeuvre of turning right.[/p][/quote]Well said. Accidents/fatalities occur in 30mph zones...hell they even happen in car parks. Remember that old dear who drove their car off the top of the Tesco car park in Bournemouth/Christch urch? Were they speeding? Nope... just an incompetent driver.[/p][/quote]But if you're travelling at high speed, and you have an accident caused by another (incompetent) driver, then your competence counts for little. You will crash, and your speed will mean greater damage and injury than would have occurred at a lower speed.[/p][/quote]But what caused the accident...caused... not what had a factor in the outcome. That's right, the incomptence caused the accident. Therefore speed in itself, is not the issue.[/p][/quote]If the world's most competent driver makes a misjudgement are they more likely to be able to safely correct that at (say) 50mph or 100mph?[/p][/quote]You're looking at it the wrong way though, which is typical for someone who is so focussed on speed alone. The speed, no matter which way you look at it, is not the cause of the accident. In some cases it would be, or at least be a reason in it, i.e. tyre failure...but then speed alone isn't the cause then either, as it would be a defective tyre... but hey, I am trying to keep things simple for you so you understand. The cause, in the point I made (and the point you just made too may I add) is not the speed. The ability to correct it at 50mph or 100mph is null and void in the argument because the cause of loss of control is a lack of competence, yes, even in a skilled driver. There is a reason the likes of Lewis Hamilton could speed around all day and not crash compared to say your gran...[/p][/quote]As you're clearly one of the world's leading experts on the subject would you please give your background. I've got an engineering degree and a fair smattering of common sense to go with it.[/p][/quote]Oh my, how special... an engineering degree! That means what exactly? Certainly nothing to help with this topic, so a bit pointless pointing that out. Shame your common sense isn't prevailing. Stereotyped
  • 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