Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole?

Bournemouth Echo: Roundels used to warn drivers of the 20mph zone Roundels used to warn drivers of the 20mph zone

Is 20 plenty? Residents of a Poole residential area are being asked for their views after speed limits were dropped by 10mph.

An extended 20mph speed limit has been operating across Newtown since March, enlarging an area already in place around Branksome Heath Junior and Sylvan Infant schools.

Now Borough of Poole wants to hear the views of people who live, work, drive, ride, walk or cycle in the area to see whether the scheme could be introduced in other parts of Poole.

“The introduction of 20mph zones aims to make streets in densely residential areas safer, quieter, cleaner and more pedestrian friendly,” said Cllr Ian Potter, cabinet portfolio holder for transportation.

“We also hope it encourages more people to make greater use of our streets by walking, cycling, playing or socialising.

“Now that the 20mph zone in Newtown has been up and running for a few months we want to know what people’s experiences are. For instance has there been a difference in how your road is used, have you noticed any benefits to the local environment or is there any less through traffic?

“Everyone’s views are important to us and the feedback will be used to inform proposals to rollout more residential 20mps zones across Poole.”

Ward member Cllr Brian Clements said: “Newtown residents are telling us that 20’s plenty in our area for a long time. People are starting to get used to the new limit and we must encourage more people to do so.

“Our local police have set up a patrol plan to help deal with speeding issues in the area.

“We have also listened to local residents in Rosemary Road and are asking for mini roundabouts to be introduced there to slow traffic and improve safety.

“We hope these changes will make Newtown a more pleasant place to live for both young and old residents.”

The extended zone was introduced in response to requests from residents and includes most of the roads from Ashley Road to Ringwood Road, Herbert Avenue to Churchill Road.

The form is available at boroughofpoole.com/roadsafety until August 13.

Comments (149)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:23am Fri 11 Jul 14

Tig says...

Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why.
.
30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea.
Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why. . 30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea. Tig
  • Score: 34

6:29am Fri 11 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

Here we go again. Why are residents being asked? Why not engineers and road safety professionals? Most would like a 20 (or slower) speed limit on their doorstep, regardless of the facts demonstrating that most of the perceived benefits are purely imaginary. Such as actual measured average speed reductions or 1MPH in Portsmouth, the first area to introduce large 20 zones. And that there is no evidence of improved safety. And what about increased accidents on other roads that traffic diverts to to avoid 20 limits. When I cycle I find much more conflict with vehicles when they travel at the same speed or slower than me.
And if they were obeyed, congestion and pollution actually increase with such slow speeds.
Of course there is a potential goldmine with enforcement income, Dorset and other forces having proven for a long time that they are totally addicted to the money they make from enforcing the most ridiculous limits while doing nothing about road safety.
“We hope these changes will make Newtown a more pleasant place to live for both young and old residents” says it all. No one should be “hoping”. All the data and evidence needed is available to properly estimate the positive (if any) and negative effects of 20 limits and to determine if a positive outcome on balance is likely. And of all the other potential solutions. Then funds can be properly spent on the solution that delivers the most.
One day if we ever get back to common sense in the councils, we may just be wasting more money reverting all these ridiculous speed limit reductions, unnecessary traffic lights, removal of traffic lanes for random, short, disconnected bits of cycle lanes, etc.
Here we go again. Why are residents being asked? Why not engineers and road safety professionals? Most would like a 20 (or slower) speed limit on their doorstep, regardless of the facts demonstrating that most of the perceived benefits are purely imaginary. Such as actual measured average speed reductions or 1MPH in Portsmouth, the first area to introduce large 20 zones. And that there is no evidence of improved safety. And what about increased accidents on other roads that traffic diverts to to avoid 20 limits. When I cycle I find much more conflict with vehicles when they travel at the same speed or slower than me. And if they were obeyed, congestion and pollution actually increase with such slow speeds. Of course there is a potential goldmine with enforcement income, Dorset and other forces having proven for a long time that they are totally addicted to the money they make from enforcing the most ridiculous limits while doing nothing about road safety. “We hope these changes will make Newtown a more pleasant place to live for both young and old residents” says it all. No one should be “hoping”. All the data and evidence needed is available to properly estimate the positive (if any) and negative effects of 20 limits and to determine if a positive outcome on balance is likely. And of all the other potential solutions. Then funds can be properly spent on the solution that delivers the most. One day if we ever get back to common sense in the councils, we may just be wasting more money reverting all these ridiculous speed limit reductions, unnecessary traffic lights, removal of traffic lanes for random, short, disconnected bits of cycle lanes, etc. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 31

6:39am Fri 11 Jul 14

pac31 says...

Tig wrote:
Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why.
.
30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea.
I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out.
[quote][p][bold]Tig[/bold] wrote: Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why. . 30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out. pac31
  • Score: 16

6:49am Fri 11 Jul 14

Stereotyped says...

No. Address the real issue which is pedestrians, not the drivers. It is a road...cars use it, people know this. The problem comes when people walk out into the road without looking. Reducing speed limits is just the easy option as they can then make money out of people who don't do it whereas if they were to actually tackle the real problem, pedestrian awareness, then they wouldn't be able to make money.
No. Address the real issue which is pedestrians, not the drivers. It is a road...cars use it, people know this. The problem comes when people walk out into the road without looking. Reducing speed limits is just the easy option as they can then make money out of people who don't do it whereas if they were to actually tackle the real problem, pedestrian awareness, then they wouldn't be able to make money. Stereotyped
  • Score: 9

6:55am Fri 11 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

pac31 wrote:
Tig wrote:
Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why.
.
30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea.
I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out.
When some people drive at "frightening" speeds, and I agree some do, they are probably driving above the 30 limit. And when it matters, when school is starting and ending, 5 can sometimes be too fast. So we should be doing something about those rogue drivers. Anyone who drives at frightening speeds is unlikely to take any notice of a number in a circle.
[quote][p][bold]pac31[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tig[/bold] wrote: Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why. . 30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out.[/p][/quote]When some people drive at "frightening" speeds, and I agree some do, they are probably driving above the 30 limit. And when it matters, when school is starting and ending, 5 can sometimes be too fast. So we should be doing something about those rogue drivers. Anyone who drives at frightening speeds is unlikely to take any notice of a number in a circle. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 20

7:14am Fri 11 Jul 14

BIGTONE says...

“We have also listened to local residents in Rosemary Road and are asking for mini roundabouts to be introduced there to slow traffic and improve safety.

Who is asking,residents or Council?

A bit of paint or sign stating 20 on the road is a waste of time to discourage motorists from doing what they do best.

Back to the bizarre ideas pool.
“We have also listened to local residents in Rosemary Road and are asking for mini roundabouts to be introduced there to slow traffic and improve safety. Who is asking,residents or Council? A bit of paint or sign stating 20 on the road is a waste of time to discourage motorists from doing what they do best. Back to the bizarre ideas pool. BIGTONE
  • Score: 5

7:16am Fri 11 Jul 14

dorsetgills says...

The beautiful lie. If you believe that 20mph are safer how comes road accidents have gone up? Here's a little report about it.
It’s official. Since the 20mph zones was introduce road casualties raised

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

The government is pulling the wool over your eyes it's all about pollination
The beautiful lie. If you believe that 20mph are safer how comes road accidents have gone up? Here's a little report about it. It’s official. Since the 20mph zones was introduce road casualties raised Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. The government is pulling the wool over your eyes it's all about pollination dorsetgills
  • Score: 20

7:18am Fri 11 Jul 14

dvdr says...

There may be some merit in 20mph zones outside schools, but only when schools are in session, and only then around arriving and leaving times. Last Sunday morning, at 07:00h, I went past the school in Sopers lane, Poole, where there is a 20mph limit. Of course, there was nobody about except me, and it was hard to see what benefit was gained by the lower limit. Some people seem to think that a speed limit has magical properties, and if something is good then more of it must be better. It isn't!

Local Broadstone panjamdrums anxious to be noticed but otherwise nondescript are calling for a 20mph ban in Broadstone. During the working day traffic there (combined with traffic light controlled crossings) is such that an average of 10mph is barely possible anyway, and a 20mph limit is pointless. And what amazing faith these people have in motorists keeping to any limit in the evenings! Such trust is misplaced, but of course there is the (unspoken) possibility of raising revenue by checking speeds and levying fines on those motorists going above 20 but below 30mph.

Let's avoid applying restrictions for restrictions' sake!
There may be some merit in 20mph zones outside schools, but only when schools are in session, and only then around arriving and leaving times. Last Sunday morning, at 07:00h, I went past the school in Sopers lane, Poole, where there is a 20mph limit. Of course, there was nobody about except me, and it was hard to see what benefit was gained by the lower limit. Some people seem to think that a speed limit has magical properties, and if something is good then more of it must be better. It isn't! Local Broadstone panjamdrums anxious to be noticed but otherwise nondescript are calling for a 20mph ban in Broadstone. During the working day traffic there (combined with traffic light controlled crossings) is such that an average of 10mph is barely possible anyway, and a 20mph limit is pointless. And what amazing faith these people have in motorists keeping to any limit in the evenings! Such trust is misplaced, but of course there is the (unspoken) possibility of raising revenue by checking speeds and levying fines on those motorists going above 20 but below 30mph. Let's avoid applying restrictions for restrictions' sake! dvdr
  • Score: 20

7:19am Fri 11 Jul 14

chucky251 says...

i live pretty close to a one way system going past the school and cars take no notice of it and still come the wrong way down the road so driver need to also take a little responsibility for there actions.
i live pretty close to a one way system going past the school and cars take no notice of it and still come the wrong way down the road so driver need to also take a little responsibility for there actions. chucky251
  • Score: 11

7:50am Fri 11 Jul 14

EGHH says...

Bloody stupid idea! 30mph is perfectly acceptable. Another council attack on motorists.
Bloody stupid idea! 30mph is perfectly acceptable. Another council attack on motorists. EGHH
  • Score: 4

7:55am Fri 11 Jul 14

we-shall-see says...

I live in a 20mph zone and let me tell you - no one, but NO ONE sticks to the limit there - even during school opening/closing times. I have never seen a Police car there to ticket speeding motorists and never heard of anyone being fined for speeding along my road - so what is the point of putting in speed limits, if they don't ENFORCE THEM REGULARLY?

Just more pain on the road and signs on the highway, that will no doubt cost a fortune, but no one will take notice of ...... if they are going to put it in, al least try enforcing it now and again!!
I live in a 20mph zone and let me tell you - no one, but NO ONE sticks to the limit there - even during school opening/closing times. I have never seen a Police car there to ticket speeding motorists and never heard of anyone being fined for speeding along my road - so what is the point of putting in speed limits, if they don't ENFORCE THEM REGULARLY? Just more pain on the road and signs on the highway, that will no doubt cost a fortune, but no one will take notice of ...... if they are going to put it in, al least try enforcing it now and again!! we-shall-see
  • Score: 18

8:16am Fri 11 Jul 14

adspacebroker says...

Absolute waste of time as very few drivers seem to stick to the limit and it is not being enforced. More importantly the main offenders are those residents who live within the zone! 20mph is not manageable for drivers over distances, it creates frustration. School Zones is a no brainer like in the USA and offenders dealt with accordingly. 20mph zones are about as effective as a Poole Borough Council Traffic Engineer, they cause more problems than they solve.....and at tax payers expense!. Look at the shambles of a roundabout at Seaview, I wonder why collisions there have increased!!!
Absolute waste of time as very few drivers seem to stick to the limit and it is not being enforced. More importantly the main offenders are those residents who live within the zone! 20mph is not manageable for drivers over distances, it creates frustration. School Zones is a no brainer like in the USA and offenders dealt with accordingly. 20mph zones are about as effective as a Poole Borough Council Traffic Engineer, they cause more problems than they solve.....and at tax payers expense!. Look at the shambles of a roundabout at Seaview, I wonder why collisions there have increased!!! adspacebroker
  • Score: 8

8:16am Fri 11 Jul 14

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

Poole Council will not listen to the overwhelming opposition to 20mph zones. Fuddy Duddy old councillors think they know best. They'll probably stick more traffic lights up somewhere as they always do or a 50 metre cycle lane or possibly even a 10 metre bus lane 'encouraging' more people to cycle/walk/use public transport.
WE WANT to use our cars. STOP brainwashing us.
Poole Council will not listen to the overwhelming opposition to 20mph zones. Fuddy Duddy old councillors think they know best. They'll probably stick more traffic lights up somewhere as they always do or a 50 metre cycle lane or possibly even a 10 metre bus lane 'encouraging' more people to cycle/walk/use public transport. WE WANT to use our cars. STOP brainwashing us. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 14

8:44am Fri 11 Jul 14

Wesoblind says...

No no no no no, wake up!!!!!! stop it!!! Whats happened to the human race? If people cannot pilot a car safly then take the keys off them!

We should be able to have NO speed limits but 90% of people are useless human beings and would do 70 past a school!

I swear we need a human cull because alot of people are backwards evolving.

Its high time the police started actually taking dangerous drivers off the road, people who:
dont indicate
havent got a clue about road position
cut across lanes on roundabouts
tailgate
dont relise there car has a three foot bonnet sticking out of a junction
etc etc etc

What possibly does changing the speed limit to 20 do at all?
People drive dangerously like idiots for three reasons.

1) They just cannot drive

2) They get away with it

3) New cars are too safe and easy to drive

Cant believe how thick this country is getting!
No no no no no, wake up!!!!!! stop it!!! Whats happened to the human race? If people cannot pilot a car safly then take the keys off them! We should be able to have NO speed limits but 90% of people are useless human beings and would do 70 past a school! I swear we need a human cull because alot of people are backwards evolving. Its high time the police started actually taking dangerous drivers off the road, people who: dont indicate havent got a clue about road position cut across lanes on roundabouts tailgate dont relise there car has a three foot bonnet sticking out of a junction etc etc etc What possibly does changing the speed limit to 20 do at all? People drive dangerously like idiots for three reasons. 1) They just cannot drive 2) They get away with it 3) New cars are too safe and easy to drive Cant believe how thick this country is getting! Wesoblind
  • Score: 14

8:44am Fri 11 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Stereotyped wrote:
No. Address the real issue which is pedestrians, not the drivers. It is a road...cars use it, people know this. The problem comes when people walk out into the road without looking. Reducing speed limits is just the easy option as they can then make money out of people who don't do it whereas if they were to actually tackle the real problem, pedestrian awareness, then they wouldn't be able to make money.
Interesting that this is being raised at a time when the cctv cars are about to become defunct, are they simply attempting to replace the lost revenue.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: No. Address the real issue which is pedestrians, not the drivers. It is a road...cars use it, people know this. The problem comes when people walk out into the road without looking. Reducing speed limits is just the easy option as they can then make money out of people who don't do it whereas if they were to actually tackle the real problem, pedestrian awareness, then they wouldn't be able to make money.[/p][/quote]Interesting that this is being raised at a time when the cctv cars are about to become defunct, are they simply attempting to replace the lost revenue. Hessenford
  • Score: 9

8:53am Fri 11 Jul 14

anotherfatslob says...

Brilliant idea,also ban obesity,and make back streets access only,no using where people live as rat runs,
Brilliant idea,also ban obesity,and make back streets access only,no using where people live as rat runs, anotherfatslob
  • Score: 8

9:02am Fri 11 Jul 14

stevesuk says...

We've had this suggestion in Broadstone. Local councillors get bowled over by the PR surrounding the 20 Is Plenty campaign. In reality, I've read that many road safety professionals are not at all convinced about the safety merits of such schemes. With this in mind, the 20 is Plenty people start to instead campaign on the environmental merits, and when that's been disproved, what will they move on to next? In my road, safety would be improved if someone tackled the minority of drivers who think its fine to drive in excess of 40 MPH in a 30 limit, or perhaps looked at bad parking - the way people dump their cars at school drop off time in Broadstone is shocking.
We've had this suggestion in Broadstone. Local councillors get bowled over by the PR surrounding the 20 Is Plenty campaign. In reality, I've read that many road safety professionals are not at all convinced about the safety merits of such schemes. With this in mind, the 20 is Plenty people start to instead campaign on the environmental merits, and when that's been disproved, what will they move on to next? In my road, safety would be improved if someone tackled the minority of drivers who think its fine to drive in excess of 40 MPH in a 30 limit, or perhaps looked at bad parking - the way people dump their cars at school drop off time in Broadstone is shocking. stevesuk
  • Score: 9

9:26am Fri 11 Jul 14

rayc says...

Remember that much heralded trial of the average speed camera system in Springdale Road Broadstone? Three years down the line it has not come into operation, the camera on test signs are now covered up as are the average speed camera signs themselves.
These things are announced in the Echo in a blaze of glory with local Councillor's extolling their virtues and then for years nothing. Was the trial a success, are they ever coming into operation or were they merely a play thing for the Siemens engineers in Sopers Lane? I notice that the red light camera on Cabot Lane traffic lights is also still on test three years after being installed.
Remember that much heralded trial of the average speed camera system in Springdale Road Broadstone? Three years down the line it has not come into operation, the camera on test signs are now covered up as are the average speed camera signs themselves. These things are announced in the Echo in a blaze of glory with local Councillor's extolling their virtues and then for years nothing. Was the trial a success, are they ever coming into operation or were they merely a play thing for the Siemens engineers in Sopers Lane? I notice that the red light camera on Cabot Lane traffic lights is also still on test three years after being installed. rayc
  • Score: 6

9:47am Fri 11 Jul 14

Jo__Go says...

There is now only one very short stretch of road in the entire Borough of Poole that is NOT speed restricted. If they don't fiddle with speed limits, the penpushers in Transportation are out of a job. This is not about benefit to residents, or compliance with regulations, so why waste taxpayers' money on it?
There is now only one very short stretch of road in the entire Borough of Poole that is NOT speed restricted. If they don't fiddle with speed limits, the penpushers in Transportation are out of a job. This is not about benefit to residents, or compliance with regulations, so why waste taxpayers' money on it? Jo__Go
  • Score: 10

9:50am Fri 11 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

dorsetgills wrote:
The beautiful lie. If you believe that 20mph are safer how comes road accidents have gone up? Here's a little report about it.
It’s official. Since the 20mph zones was introduce road casualties raised

Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts.

The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent.

In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads.

Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads.

There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads.

Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise.

Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

The government is pulling the wool over your eyes it's all about pollination
dorsetgills: The beautiful lie. If you believe that 20mph are safer how comes road accidents have gone up? Here's a little report about it. It’s official.

dorsetgills: Since the 20mph zones was introduce road casualties raised Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen.

Boardandphotos says: The more 20mph zone coverage there is the more accidents will occur under that category, the accidents will be less serious if all accidents in a 20mph zone occur where the vehicle was travelling at 20mph or less.

dorsetgills: The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists.

Boardandphotos says: Where is the data that shows what speed the vehicle was travelling in those cases? Would the accidents have been more serious in a 30mph zone where the car was travelling at 30mph or more? - Yes

dorsetgills: Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents.

Boardsandphotos says: The entire paragraph tells us what we need to know, more 20mph zones a greater increase in LESS serious accidents plus a reduction in MORE serious accidents in 30mph and 40mph zones.

Boardsandphotos says: The more 20mph zone coverage, the greater the number of accidents reported under that category, but the accidents are all LESS serious had they have happened in a 30mph or 40mph zone, the writer has tried to skew your opinion in the last sentence by not making the difference between less serious and more serious accidents.

dorsetgills: Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent.

Boardsandphotos says: Again, an increase in 20mph zone coverage the greater the number of accidents, how many serious accidents in 20mph zones were caused by drivers travelling at more than 20mph? Would the accident be worse if the vehicle was travelling at 30mph or more? - Yes.

Boardsandphotos says: 20mph zones will see a rise in less serious accidents and reduce the number of serious accidents on the roads, but only if the speed limit is being obeyed.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetgills[/bold] wrote: The beautiful lie. If you believe that 20mph are safer how comes road accidents have gone up? Here's a little report about it. It’s official. Since the 20mph zones was introduce road casualties raised Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. The government is pulling the wool over your eyes it's all about pollination[/p][/quote]dorsetgills: The beautiful lie. If you believe that 20mph are safer how comes road accidents have gone up? Here's a little report about it. It’s official. dorsetgills: Since the 20mph zones was introduce road casualties raised Forget all the 20mph campaigning you have seen. Boardandphotos says: The more 20mph zone coverage there is the more accidents will occur under that category, the accidents will be less serious if all accidents in a 20mph zone occur where the vehicle was travelling at 20mph or less. dorsetgills: The truth hurts. The number of serious accidents on 20mph roads has increased by 26 per cent last year, according to analysis of government data by road safety charity, Institute of Advanced Motorists. Boardandphotos says: Where is the data that shows what speed the vehicle was travelling in those cases? Would the accidents have been more serious in a 30mph zone where the car was travelling at 30mph or more? - Yes dorsetgills: Slight accidents on 20mph roads increased by 17 per cent. In the same year, there was a decrease in the number of serious and slight accidents on 30mph roads and 40 mph roads. Serious accidents went down 9 per cent on 30mph roads and 7 per cent on 40 mph roads. There was a five per cent reduction in slight accidents on 30 mph roads and a three per cent decrease on 40 mph roads. Even though the decrease in 30 zone accidents is partially because some have been displaced by 20 zones, the imposition of 20 zones has still led to a significant increase in accidents. Boardsandphotos says: The entire paragraph tells us what we need to know, more 20mph zones a greater increase in LESS serious accidents plus a reduction in MORE serious accidents in 30mph and 40mph zones. Boardsandphotos says: The more 20mph zone coverage, the greater the number of accidents reported under that category, but the accidents are all LESS serious had they have happened in a 30mph or 40mph zone, the writer has tried to skew your opinion in the last sentence by not making the difference between less serious and more serious accidents. dorsetgills: Casualties in 20mph zones also saw a rise. Serious casualties increased by 29 per cent while slight casualties went up by 19 per cent. Boardsandphotos says: Again, an increase in 20mph zone coverage the greater the number of accidents, how many serious accidents in 20mph zones were caused by drivers travelling at more than 20mph? Would the accident be worse if the vehicle was travelling at 30mph or more? - Yes. Boardsandphotos says: 20mph zones will see a rise in less serious accidents and reduce the number of serious accidents on the roads, but only if the speed limit is being obeyed. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 2

9:59am Fri 11 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Where I live in Albert Road Parkstone I am surrounded by 20 mph zone and ludicrous speed humps. Nearly every road in this area is now single file traffic due to parking on both sides and the traffic calming measures. Sunnyside Road is a prime example of the lunacy of 20 mph zone, you always need to stop for oncoming cars, it makes far more sense to get down that road at 30 mph before any more traffic comes and there is normally always another car waiting at the other end. So tell me where exactly is the logic in putting in 20mph limit which obviously leads to greater congestion. Maybe instead of the council asking people what they think of the 20mph limits they should try to actually drive around where they are in place, then they might actually see that it is not a workable idea. The best one is recreation road 20mph zone, it has speed humps all along it, you couldn't drive along there at 30 even if you wanted to.

This was actually brought up at a council meeting not so long back and a LibDem councillor tried to justify the 20mph limits by quoting the advert on TV that shows the difference between 70, 40, & 30 in respect of how a child has greater chances at 30. I pointed out that it shows 30 is a safe speed and doesn't even mention 20. Obviously that response fell on deaf ears, which happens to be the norm in Poole council.
Where I live in Albert Road Parkstone I am surrounded by 20 mph zone and ludicrous speed humps. Nearly every road in this area is now single file traffic due to parking on both sides and the traffic calming measures. Sunnyside Road is a prime example of the lunacy of 20 mph zone, you always need to stop for oncoming cars, it makes far more sense to get down that road at 30 mph before any more traffic comes and there is normally always another car waiting at the other end. So tell me where exactly is the logic in putting in 20mph limit which obviously leads to greater congestion. Maybe instead of the council asking people what they think of the 20mph limits they should try to actually drive around where they are in place, then they might actually see that it is not a workable idea. The best one is recreation road 20mph zone, it has speed humps all along it, you couldn't drive along there at 30 even if you wanted to. This was actually brought up at a council meeting not so long back and a LibDem councillor tried to justify the 20mph limits by quoting the advert on TV that shows the difference between 70, 40, & 30 in respect of how a child has greater chances at 30. I pointed out that it shows 30 is a safe speed and doesn't even mention 20. Obviously that response fell on deaf ears, which happens to be the norm in Poole council. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 13

10:01am Fri 11 Jul 14

The Liberal says...

The likelihood is that most people would like a 20mph limit in their own street but don't want to drive that slowly along other people's streets.
The likelihood is that most people would like a 20mph limit in their own street but don't want to drive that slowly along other people's streets. The Liberal
  • Score: 12

10:03am Fri 11 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

The Liberal wrote:
The likelihood is that most people would like a 20mph limit in their own street but don't want to drive that slowly along other people's streets.
A sort of reverse nimbyism? :)
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: The likelihood is that most people would like a 20mph limit in their own street but don't want to drive that slowly along other people's streets.[/p][/quote]A sort of reverse nimbyism? :) boardsandphotos
  • Score: 5

10:30am Fri 11 Jul 14

BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth says...

20mph zones are just another excuse for local authorities to waste ratepayers cash on pointless projects, 30mph limits are perfectly OK, and if people can't stick to a 30mph limit they aren't likely to adhere to a 20mph limit either.
20mph zones are just another excuse for local authorities to waste ratepayers cash on pointless projects, 30mph limits are perfectly OK, and if people can't stick to a 30mph limit they aren't likely to adhere to a 20mph limit either. BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth
  • Score: 8

10:32am Fri 11 Jul 14

stevesuk says...

The Liberal wrote:
The likelihood is that most people would like a 20mph limit in their own street but don't want to drive that slowly along other people's streets.
I'm happy with the 30 MPH limit in my street, but only if everyone stuck to 30 MPH, and saw it as a maximum speed rather than minimum. In my view, the problem is not needing to reduce the limit to 20, but to stop a minority of drivers who think it's fine to tank along at 40 MPH or 50 MPH along a residential road with a 30 MPH speed limit. I predict these people will take no notice what so ever of a 20 MPH speed limit. If the rest of us drive at around 30 MPH or less already, then it brings in to question the benefit of the thing in the first place? No doubt if you adopt these schemes, there will be funding from somewhere, and its great PR for local councillors to put on their political "CV". I guess that's why they're beginning to blight every urban area in the UK...
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: The likelihood is that most people would like a 20mph limit in their own street but don't want to drive that slowly along other people's streets.[/p][/quote]I'm happy with the 30 MPH limit in my street, but only if everyone stuck to 30 MPH, and saw it as a maximum speed rather than minimum. In my view, the problem is not needing to reduce the limit to 20, but to stop a minority of drivers who think it's fine to tank along at 40 MPH or 50 MPH along a residential road with a 30 MPH speed limit. I predict these people will take no notice what so ever of a 20 MPH speed limit. If the rest of us drive at around 30 MPH or less already, then it brings in to question the benefit of the thing in the first place? No doubt if you adopt these schemes, there will be funding from somewhere, and its great PR for local councillors to put on their political "CV". I guess that's why they're beginning to blight every urban area in the UK... stevesuk
  • Score: 8

10:38am Fri 11 Jul 14

David94 says...

Problem is people don't/won't acknowledge a speed change it might as well be a minimum speed of 20 and a max speed of 35, it seems to be the average speed on most of Bournemouth & Pooles roads
Problem is people don't/won't acknowledge a speed change it might as well be a minimum speed of 20 and a max speed of 35, it seems to be the average speed on most of Bournemouth & Pooles roads David94
  • Score: 1

11:55am Fri 11 Jul 14

Ragwin says...

If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm. Ragwin
  • Score: 1

11:57am Fri 11 Jul 14

Ollieblog says...

All speed limits need to be enforced and driving on pavements needs to be stopped - I had to stop as a pedestrian the other day as a driver pulled onto the pavement in Albert Road so a lorry could pass. I have also nearly been hit by a van driving at speed on the pavement probably more concerned about hitting an on-coming car than me. And when I get number plates I report it. As a cyclist or driver turning right off main roads it is easier if on-coming traffic is going within the speed limit. Common sense, and more considerate driving is needed for everyone's benefit.
All speed limits need to be enforced and driving on pavements needs to be stopped - I had to stop as a pedestrian the other day as a driver pulled onto the pavement in Albert Road so a lorry could pass. I have also nearly been hit by a van driving at speed on the pavement probably more concerned about hitting an on-coming car than me. And when I get number plates I report it. As a cyclist or driver turning right off main roads it is easier if on-coming traffic is going within the speed limit. Common sense, and more considerate driving is needed for everyone's benefit. Ollieblog
  • Score: 6

12:15pm Fri 11 Jul 14

blackdog1 says...

No no no! Take out the speed humps put the limit back up to 30 mph! The roads round Parkstone are a complete joke, cars queuing , banging up and down the speed humps,lorries getting stuck,bin lorries unable to get down some of the small roads due to the parking either side of silly chicanes! What is the fascination for daft schemes in an around Parkstone? Like someone has said before,let the Council try living and driving around Parkstone and see the problems they have caused!
No no no! Take out the speed humps put the limit back up to 30 mph! The roads round Parkstone are a complete joke, cars queuing , banging up and down the speed humps,lorries getting stuck,bin lorries unable to get down some of the small roads due to the parking either side of silly chicanes! What is the fascination for daft schemes in an around Parkstone? Like someone has said before,let the Council try living and driving around Parkstone and see the problems they have caused! blackdog1
  • Score: 6

12:31pm Fri 11 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

No, of course most thinking capable motorists do not want or need this to be imposed upon them to ensure they drive properly and safely in Poole - because they already are.

In Portsmouth a blanket very inconvenient 20mph has proven that the few idiot drivers will still cause traffic accidents - most oddly it appears even more accidents than they did under the previous normal 30mph limit!

It seem there is a fixation within local Government about slowing down town traffic basically for the sake of it, maybe they are following some form of 'green' or EU driven hidden agenda because it seems to have nothing to do with common sense. Perhaps they should cut out all the phases of their grand 'traffic scheme' and simply paint all the roads green for cyclists and ban cars altogether - because that seems to be where they are currently heading.
No, of course most thinking capable motorists do not want or need this to be imposed upon them to ensure they drive properly and safely in Poole - because they already are. In Portsmouth a blanket very inconvenient 20mph has proven that the few idiot drivers will still cause traffic accidents - most oddly it appears even more accidents than they did under the previous normal 30mph limit! It seem there is a fixation within local Government about slowing down town traffic basically for the sake of it, maybe they are following some form of 'green' or EU driven hidden agenda because it seems to have nothing to do with common sense. Perhaps they should cut out all the phases of their grand 'traffic scheme' and simply paint all the roads green for cyclists and ban cars altogether - because that seems to be where they are currently heading. muscliffman
  • Score: 6

1:12pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Jo__Go says...

Ragwin wrote:
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only).
By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular!
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.[/p][/quote]Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only). By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular! Jo__Go
  • Score: 2

1:34pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Cosmic Crusader says...

I have no objection to speed limits and believe that in a large number of urban residential areas 20 mph is a suitable maximum. Their enforcement by means of humps, chicanes and the like is what makes my blood boil. However it is the inconsiderate road users who believe they are above the law and necessitate these restrictive measures that should perhaps be the target of my anger.
I have no objection to speed limits and believe that in a large number of urban residential areas 20 mph is a suitable maximum. Their enforcement by means of humps, chicanes and the like is what makes my blood boil. However it is the inconsiderate road users who believe they are above the law and necessitate these restrictive measures that should perhaps be the target of my anger. Cosmic Crusader
  • Score: 3

2:16pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Old Colonial says...

If there was a sensible routing of through traffic in the conurbation, drivers would not be tempted to use residential streets as rat runs.
If there was a sensible routing of through traffic in the conurbation, drivers would not be tempted to use residential streets as rat runs. Old Colonial
  • Score: 3

2:41pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Stereotyped says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only).
By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular!
Bang on, was going to point that out too.

If the roads are "for everyone" which they are, then they are not 'owned' in anyway by the people who live on them, therefore what speed limit they want has no leverage over the road users who also use that road who live elsewhere.

30mph is fine... if the driver cannot avoid an accident at that speed it says more about their competence than the speed involved.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.[/p][/quote]Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only). By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular![/p][/quote]Bang on, was going to point that out too. If the roads are "for everyone" which they are, then they are not 'owned' in anyway by the people who live on them, therefore what speed limit they want has no leverage over the road users who also use that road who live elsewhere. 30mph is fine... if the driver cannot avoid an accident at that speed it says more about their competence than the speed involved. Stereotyped
  • Score: 4

6:58pm Fri 11 Jul 14

podgie says...

Oh yes why not make it one big pedestrian area,and demand everyone by law has to wear bubble wrap.
While I am on the subject,down here in the retirement capital of the world.
How about some of our more elderly drivers who are not ,walking ,seeing,hearing and operating on a level that would make them competent behind the wheel,yet I see them happily steering cars willy nilly all over the place in a world of their own.
And as for the mad Fecks on their disabled scooters,Don't get me started.
Not too many thumbs up please
Oh yes why not make it one big pedestrian area,and demand everyone by law has to wear bubble wrap. While I am on the subject,down here in the retirement capital of the world. How about some of our more elderly drivers who are not ,walking ,seeing,hearing and operating on a level that would make them competent behind the wheel,yet I see them happily steering cars willy nilly all over the place in a world of their own. And as for the mad Fecks on their disabled scooters,Don't get me started. Not too many thumbs up please podgie
  • Score: 2

7:53pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Ragwin says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only).
By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular!
Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit????
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.[/p][/quote]Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only). By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular![/p][/quote]Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit???? Ragwin
  • Score: -1

8:57pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Jo__Go says...

Ragwin wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only).
By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular!
Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit????
Are you saying motorists should only drive at 20mph?
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.[/p][/quote]Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only). By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular![/p][/quote]Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit????[/p][/quote]Are you saying motorists should only drive at 20mph? Jo__Go
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Alantrom says...

pac31 wrote:
Tig wrote:
Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why.
.
30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea.
I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out.
Pac31, in response to another comment said "I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out."
Having seen the driving by a school near me, in Bournemouth, I share the concern about the speed of some of the drivers. I have absolutely no desire to be be sexist but from what I have seen, some of the worst offenders are the mums themselves.
[quote][p][bold]pac31[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tig[/bold] wrote: Should there be more 20mph zones across Poole? Absolutely not! What is this obsession with 20mph limits, not to mention build-outs and speed humps? And why are they trialled in less affluent areas and not places like Canford Cliffs? Because the residents there wouldn't tolerate it, that's why. . 30mph is fine, although I accept that a 20mph limit around schools (in school term time) might be a good idea.[/p][/quote]I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out.[/p][/quote]Pac31, in response to another comment said "I agree with Tig that all school roads should be 20mph and dropping to 10 mph outside of the school itself. I live on a school road and it is fightening the speed some people drive at. So come on Poole council and get your paint out." Having seen the driving by a school near me, in Bournemouth, I share the concern about the speed of some of the drivers. I have absolutely no desire to be be sexist but from what I have seen, some of the worst offenders are the mums themselves. Alantrom
  • Score: 4

9:19pm Fri 11 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around!
slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around! uvox44
  • Score: 2

10:18pm Fri 11 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

uvox44 wrote:
slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around!
Agreed. But the speed apologists like dorsetspleen will tell you it's ok for cars to carry on killing or injuring other drivers cyclists and pedestrians. They will swear blind that speed doesn't kill because they just won't listen to anyone else's arguments.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around![/p][/quote]Agreed. But the speed apologists like dorsetspleen will tell you it's ok for cars to carry on killing or injuring other drivers cyclists and pedestrians. They will swear blind that speed doesn't kill because they just won't listen to anyone else's arguments. tbpoole
  • Score: -6

10:28pm Fri 11 Jul 14

ashleycross says...

Good grief , some of the people posting here might actually have to consider walking to the end of the road instead of driving. What will the NHS do with itself in the town if everyone in Poole starts putting one foot in front of the other to move about? Doctors and nurses out of work, garages closing down because not enough people want petrol, the mind boggles.
Good grief , some of the people posting here might actually have to consider walking to the end of the road instead of driving. What will the NHS do with itself in the town if everyone in Poole starts putting one foot in front of the other to move about? Doctors and nurses out of work, garages closing down because not enough people want petrol, the mind boggles. ashleycross
  • Score: 4

10:31pm Fri 11 Jul 14

ashleycross says...

Don't forget to show your appreciation to the AA for campaigning in favour of people driving around like lunatics with no speed limits since it was founded. Join the AA and support campaigning for dangerous driving. Wiki it if you don't believe me.
Don't forget to show your appreciation to the AA for campaigning in favour of people driving around like lunatics with no speed limits since it was founded. Join the AA and support campaigning for dangerous driving. Wiki it if you don't believe me. ashleycross
  • Score: -1

10:35pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Ragwin says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only).
By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular!
Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit????
Are you saying motorists should only drive at 20mph?
No, I'm saying that motorists don't own the road. So the rules of the road should not be biased in favour of motorists.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.[/p][/quote]Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only). By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular![/p][/quote]Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit????[/p][/quote]Are you saying motorists should only drive at 20mph?[/p][/quote]No, I'm saying that motorists don't own the road. So the rules of the road should not be biased in favour of motorists. Ragwin
  • Score: 2

11:55pm Fri 11 Jul 14

podgie says...

uvox44 wrote:
slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around!
Yea right on
I wonder what public sector job or state hand out you live off
FRUITCAKE
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around![/p][/quote]Yea right on I wonder what public sector job or state hand out you live off FRUITCAKE podgie
  • Score: -1

9:03am Sat 12 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around!
Agreed. But the speed apologists like dorsetspleen will tell you it's ok for cars to carry on killing or injuring other drivers cyclists and pedestrians. They will swear blind that speed doesn't kill because they just won't listen to anyone else's arguments.
The mentality of the go slow people is demonstrated very well here. Apparently, car users are in fact " hurtling around pointlessly in their tin ego machines" etc. They resort to childish name calling. They say anyone who disagrees with them thinks "it's ok for cars to carry on killing or injuring other drivers cyclists and pedestrians".

I won't listen to your arguments, that's a laugh! Remind me of when you have made a credible argument. Also could you remind me of anything that I have written that has not been properly supported by facts, evidence and simple logic.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: slow down! God forbid! How dare the nanny state interfere with the birth right of every motorist to risk the lives of themselves and everyone else as they hurtle around pointlessly in their tin ego machines! Of course their lives become immeasurably more important than any other human being as soon as they get in their cars! Why should pedestrians ever need to cross a road anyway?!!! The nerve of people not in cars! Cars make people happy after all - look how relaxed, tolerant and joyous people are as they drive around![/p][/quote]Agreed. But the speed apologists like dorsetspleen will tell you it's ok for cars to carry on killing or injuring other drivers cyclists and pedestrians. They will swear blind that speed doesn't kill because they just won't listen to anyone else's arguments.[/p][/quote]The mentality of the go slow people is demonstrated very well here. Apparently, car users are in fact " hurtling around pointlessly in their tin ego machines" etc. They resort to childish name calling. They say anyone who disagrees with them thinks "it's ok for cars to carry on killing or injuring other drivers cyclists and pedestrians". I won't listen to your arguments, that's a laugh! Remind me of when you have made a credible argument. Also could you remind me of anything that I have written that has not been properly supported by facts, evidence and simple logic. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

10:38am Sat 12 Jul 14

Jo__Go says...

Ragwin wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
Jo__Go wrote:
Ragwin wrote:
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only).
By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular!
Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit????
Are you saying motorists should only drive at 20mph?
No, I'm saying that motorists don't own the road. So the rules of the road should not be biased in favour of motorists.
Then, again, tosh!
Motorists don't own the road, but without motorists, there wouldn't be any roads, just pedestrian precincts. If you want to build housing estates without access for vehicles, then go ahead - see how many folk buy the houses.
You seem to forget that the people behind the wheel pretty much all live in residential areas; there's not a separate breed of human that spends its entire live living in a car on the move, there's just people.
Roads exist to enable the free passage of vehicles *and their drivers, passengers, and cargo*. Of course the rules framework around them is going to be set to enable that free passage. Doesn't mean it shouldn't respect the needs and rights of pedestrians and residents, but it does mean that it's pretty much always going to be 'biased in favour of motorists', unless the Transportation Monkeys at local and national government continue to trot out their cloud cuckoo land schemes, having forgotten why roads are actually there, and the needs of everyday people who use cars to go about their everyday business.
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.[/p][/quote]Tosh! You make your own argument invalid ... "The street is there to be used by everyone". That includes the motorists that pay through the nose to keep roads up to scratch (ha! if only). By your logic, the good folk of Wimborne Road, Wallisdown Road, Blandford Road should all be able to insist on a 20mph limit, that would be popular![/p][/quote]Are you saying that motorists cannot use streets with a 20 mph speed limit????[/p][/quote]Are you saying motorists should only drive at 20mph?[/p][/quote]No, I'm saying that motorists don't own the road. So the rules of the road should not be biased in favour of motorists.[/p][/quote]Then, again, tosh! Motorists don't own the road, but without motorists, there wouldn't be any roads, just pedestrian precincts. If you want to build housing estates without access for vehicles, then go ahead - see how many folk buy the houses. You seem to forget that the people behind the wheel pretty much all live in residential areas; there's not a separate breed of human that spends its entire live living in a car on the move, there's just people. Roads exist to enable the free passage of vehicles *and their drivers, passengers, and cargo*. Of course the rules framework around them is going to be set to enable that free passage. Doesn't mean it shouldn't respect the needs and rights of pedestrians and residents, but it does mean that it's pretty much always going to be 'biased in favour of motorists', unless the Transportation Monkeys at local and national government continue to trot out their cloud cuckoo land schemes, having forgotten why roads are actually there, and the needs of everyday people who use cars to go about their everyday business. Jo__Go
  • Score: 1

11:25am Sat 12 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

EGHH wrote:
Bloody stupid idea! 30mph is perfectly acceptable. Another council attack on motorists.
Totally agree! The council,. especially the Libdems seem to forgot that the majority use their cars to get to work, to earn money and pay taxes that actually go towards keeping this country afloat. Yet they want to make the lives of those people unnecessarily restricted, simply because they can.

The real problem is two fold, those who can't keep to the 30mph speed limit and those who do not pay attention when crossing roads. Reducing the speed limit to 20mph will not change any of those two things in the slightest.
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] wrote: Bloody stupid idea! 30mph is perfectly acceptable. Another council attack on motorists.[/p][/quote]Totally agree! The council,. especially the Libdems seem to forgot that the majority use their cars to get to work, to earn money and pay taxes that actually go towards keeping this country afloat. Yet they want to make the lives of those people unnecessarily restricted, simply because they can. The real problem is two fold, those who can't keep to the 30mph speed limit and those who do not pay attention when crossing roads. Reducing the speed limit to 20mph will not change any of those two things in the slightest. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 1

1:50pm Sat 12 Jul 14

folkprotector says...

Here's an idea... put speed cameras in 20mph zones, all of them wherever they are. Nobody who speeds will have any excuse. This is simply because to ensure that those who consider obeying the motoring laws are discretionary get to find out they are mandatory.
Here's an idea... put speed cameras in 20mph zones, all of them wherever they are. Nobody who speeds will have any excuse. This is simply because to ensure that those who consider obeying the motoring laws are discretionary get to find out they are mandatory. folkprotector
  • Score: 3

3:57pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Tictock says...

No.
No. Tictock
  • Score: -1

7:22pm Sat 12 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

podgie- isn't it strange how your reaction to my comment reveals more about you and your strange prejudices than actually adding anything to the debate? I actually work for a private company and take no handouts as you call them- sorry to disapoint you - did you used to get a lot of comments along the lines of "must try harder" on your school report? thought so...
podgie- isn't it strange how your reaction to my comment reveals more about you and your strange prejudices than actually adding anything to the debate? I actually work for a private company and take no handouts as you call them- sorry to disapoint you - did you used to get a lot of comments along the lines of "must try harder" on your school report? thought so... uvox44
  • Score: 1

9:10pm Sat 12 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

dorsetspeed - here's a really simple one for you- you cross the road but fail to notice a car - would you rather that car was going at 30 or 20 ? A straightforward answer will do...
dorsetspeed - here's a really simple one for you- you cross the road but fail to notice a car - would you rather that car was going at 30 or 20 ? A straightforward answer will do... uvox44
  • Score: 2

10:09pm Sat 12 Jul 14

FNS-man says...

Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car.
Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car. FNS-man
  • Score: 2

10:29pm Sat 12 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed - here's a really simple one for you- you cross the road but fail to notice a car - would you rather that car was going at 30 or 20 ? A straightforward answer will do...
Well, obviously, as a pedestrian I would prefer to be hit at 20 than 30. But if that is the only logic in the equation, I would prefer to be hit at 5 than 20, actually, 0 would be better - so let's just ban all cars? But I would certainly prefer the driver to be looking at the road ahead rather than his speedo in order to maintain an unrealistically low speed, then he might have seen me walking into the road and avoided me altogether.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed - here's a really simple one for you- you cross the road but fail to notice a car - would you rather that car was going at 30 or 20 ? A straightforward answer will do...[/p][/quote]Well, obviously, as a pedestrian I would prefer to be hit at 20 than 30. But if that is the only logic in the equation, I would prefer to be hit at 5 than 20, actually, 0 would be better - so let's just ban all cars? But I would certainly prefer the driver to be looking at the road ahead rather than his speedo in order to maintain an unrealistically low speed, then he might have seen me walking into the road and avoided me altogether. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

11:15pm Sat 12 Jul 14

xena dion says...

i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....
i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub.... xena dion
  • Score: -1

10:33am Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

xena dion wrote:
i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....
Good to see you taking notice and taking part. The problem is, the council do not have a very good history of listening, except to those who are asking for what the council have already decided to do. Take the Fleetsbridge traffic lights for example. I still waste about 5 minutes every day, and start / stop, sit with my motor burning fuel when there is absolutely no reason not to continue to flow smoothly - there is also the inevitable racing towards the occasional green light to try to get through it.

It is the job of the council to make the right decisions not the decisions that some shout for. You make the right decisions by seeking all views, and making decisions based on evidence and advice from professionals, and by considering alternatives that may meet the objectives more efficiently. The council must understand that the economy of an area is dependent on the ability to travel within it efficiently.

Surely you do not believe that 20 zones will solve the problem of irresponsible driving? Have you even looked at earlier 20 schemes such as Portsmouth where the average speed reduction was just 1MPH and there is no evidence of KSI reduction?

It should not need anyone to tell the council to abandon 20 limits. If the council did its job properly, it would know.
[quote][p][bold]xena dion[/bold] wrote: i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....[/p][/quote]Good to see you taking notice and taking part. The problem is, the council do not have a very good history of listening, except to those who are asking for what the council have already decided to do. Take the Fleetsbridge traffic lights for example. I still waste about 5 minutes every day, and start / stop, sit with my motor burning fuel when there is absolutely no reason not to continue to flow smoothly - there is also the inevitable racing towards the occasional green light to try to get through it. It is the job of the council to make the right decisions not the decisions that some shout for. You make the right decisions by seeking all views, and making decisions based on evidence and advice from professionals, and by considering alternatives that may meet the objectives more efficiently. The council must understand that the economy of an area is dependent on the ability to travel within it efficiently. Surely you do not believe that 20 zones will solve the problem of irresponsible driving? Have you even looked at earlier 20 schemes such as Portsmouth where the average speed reduction was just 1MPH and there is no evidence of KSI reduction? It should not need anyone to tell the council to abandon 20 limits. If the council did its job properly, it would know. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:37am Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car.
Wow, so a number 20 in a circle can even solve the nations obesity problem, and 10% of the NHS budget, incredible
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car.[/p][/quote]Wow, so a number 20 in a circle can even solve the nations obesity problem, and 10% of the NHS budget, incredible dorsetspeed
  • Score: -4

12:23pm Sun 13 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence.
Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no?
Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence. Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no? uvox44
  • Score: 2

12:29pm Sun 13 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

And to answer your comment on the logic of speed reduction you know as well as i do that the phyics of momentum are such that even a modest reduction in speed has a disproportionate benefit in lessening the effects of an impact - I don't believe you don't already know this so I can only concluding you are just being sarcastic because you are one of the car is king lobby .
And to answer your comment on the logic of speed reduction you know as well as i do that the phyics of momentum are such that even a modest reduction in speed has a disproportionate benefit in lessening the effects of an impact - I don't believe you don't already know this so I can only concluding you are just being sarcastic because you are one of the car is king lobby . uvox44
  • Score: 3

12:43pm Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence.
Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no?
In the good old days speed limits used to be above normal natural speeds for the road type, so an average driver just going from A to B would not really have to worry about them as they would always have been within them. Now many limits are far below normal natural speeds so more attention to the speedo is required if you are trying to keep within them. Yes, compliance with limits is good, but one of the biggest reasons for non compliance is that the limits have been set so far below normal natural speeds. The intentions of ISA may good but I think it's poorly thought through, would it only be introduced on new cars? What would that do to vehicle sales? What about the conflict of vehicles with and without? What about filters where a little burst of speed can help with lane merging? What about hitting the limit while overtaking and then not being able to pass in time?

The answer as always is to consider speed in proportion to all the other issues, not as the single solution to everything - the inevitable result of the easy money coming from enforcement.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence. Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no?[/p][/quote]In the good old days speed limits used to be above normal natural speeds for the road type, so an average driver just going from A to B would not really have to worry about them as they would always have been within them. Now many limits are far below normal natural speeds so more attention to the speedo is required if you are trying to keep within them. Yes, compliance with limits is good, but one of the biggest reasons for non compliance is that the limits have been set so far below normal natural speeds. The intentions of ISA may good but I think it's poorly thought through, would it only be introduced on new cars? What would that do to vehicle sales? What about the conflict of vehicles with and without? What about filters where a little burst of speed can help with lane merging? What about hitting the limit while overtaking and then not being able to pass in time? The answer as always is to consider speed in proportion to all the other issues, not as the single solution to everything - the inevitable result of the easy money coming from enforcement. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
And to answer your comment on the logic of speed reduction you know as well as i do that the phyics of momentum are such that even a modest reduction in speed has a disproportionate benefit in lessening the effects of an impact - I don't believe you don't already know this so I can only concluding you are just being sarcastic because you are one of the car is king lobby .
Actually, momentum is proportional to speed (difference), not disproportionate. Kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared, and this is often used as an argument about vehicles hitting pedestrians. But in this scenario, it is the momentum that matters as it is the pedestrian that experiences the major part of the change in speed.

Still, my point is that 0 mph hurts less than 20, so if reducing injury by reducing speed is all you have in the equation, you would choose a speed of 0.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: And to answer your comment on the logic of speed reduction you know as well as i do that the phyics of momentum are such that even a modest reduction in speed has a disproportionate benefit in lessening the effects of an impact - I don't believe you don't already know this so I can only concluding you are just being sarcastic because you are one of the car is king lobby .[/p][/quote]Actually, momentum is proportional to speed (difference), not disproportionate. Kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared, and this is often used as an argument about vehicles hitting pedestrians. But in this scenario, it is the momentum that matters as it is the pedestrian that experiences the major part of the change in speed. Still, my point is that 0 mph hurts less than 20, so if reducing injury by reducing speed is all you have in the equation, you would choose a speed of 0. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

1:20pm Sun 13 Jul 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car.
Wow, so a number 20 in a circle can even solve the nations obesity problem, and 10% of the NHS budget, incredible
No, people getting out of their cars to walk or cycle will. And that won't happen with people driving cars at speeds that are perfectly safe for those in the cars, but not for vulnerable road users.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car.[/p][/quote]Wow, so a number 20 in a circle can even solve the nations obesity problem, and 10% of the NHS budget, incredible[/p][/quote]No, people getting out of their cars to walk or cycle will. And that won't happen with people driving cars at speeds that are perfectly safe for those in the cars, but not for vulnerable road users. FNS-man
  • Score: 4

1:51pm Sun 13 Jul 14

folkprotector says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence.
Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no?
In the good old days speed limits used to be above normal natural speeds for the road type, so an average driver just going from A to B would not really have to worry about them as they would always have been within them. Now many limits are far below normal natural speeds so more attention to the speedo is required if you are trying to keep within them. Yes, compliance with limits is good, but one of the biggest reasons for non compliance is that the limits have been set so far below normal natural speeds. The intentions of ISA may good but I think it's poorly thought through, would it only be introduced on new cars? What would that do to vehicle sales? What about the conflict of vehicles with and without? What about filters where a little burst of speed can help with lane merging? What about hitting the limit while overtaking and then not being able to pass in time?

The answer as always is to consider speed in proportion to all the other issues, not as the single solution to everything - the inevitable result of the easy money coming from enforcement.
Normal natural speed? What's that?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence. Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no?[/p][/quote]In the good old days speed limits used to be above normal natural speeds for the road type, so an average driver just going from A to B would not really have to worry about them as they would always have been within them. Now many limits are far below normal natural speeds so more attention to the speedo is required if you are trying to keep within them. Yes, compliance with limits is good, but one of the biggest reasons for non compliance is that the limits have been set so far below normal natural speeds. The intentions of ISA may good but I think it's poorly thought through, would it only be introduced on new cars? What would that do to vehicle sales? What about the conflict of vehicles with and without? What about filters where a little burst of speed can help with lane merging? What about hitting the limit while overtaking and then not being able to pass in time? The answer as always is to consider speed in proportion to all the other issues, not as the single solution to everything - the inevitable result of the easy money coming from enforcement.[/p][/quote]Normal natural speed? What's that? folkprotector
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

folkprotector wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence.
Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no?
In the good old days speed limits used to be above normal natural speeds for the road type, so an average driver just going from A to B would not really have to worry about them as they would always have been within them. Now many limits are far below normal natural speeds so more attention to the speedo is required if you are trying to keep within them. Yes, compliance with limits is good, but one of the biggest reasons for non compliance is that the limits have been set so far below normal natural speeds. The intentions of ISA may good but I think it's poorly thought through, would it only be introduced on new cars? What would that do to vehicle sales? What about the conflict of vehicles with and without? What about filters where a little burst of speed can help with lane merging? What about hitting the limit while overtaking and then not being able to pass in time?

The answer as always is to consider speed in proportion to all the other issues, not as the single solution to everything - the inevitable result of the easy money coming from enforcement.
Normal natural speed? What's that?
Generally considered to be the 85% percentile
[quote][p][bold]folkprotector[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: Dorset speed why is it that the old rubbish about drivers needing to be constantly looking at the speedometers at low speeds is trotted out , strangely you never hear it talked about at higher speeds- are you seriously suggesting drivers can only accurately judge speed at above 40-50mph? Please provide the scientific evidence for this as I know you are very keen on evidence. Presumably as you are in favour of drivers sticking to the speed limit (?) you would endorse the fitting of automatic speed regulators being fitted to all vehicles (excluding emergency services) that would use gps to stop anyone speeding? Yes or no?[/p][/quote]In the good old days speed limits used to be above normal natural speeds for the road type, so an average driver just going from A to B would not really have to worry about them as they would always have been within them. Now many limits are far below normal natural speeds so more attention to the speedo is required if you are trying to keep within them. Yes, compliance with limits is good, but one of the biggest reasons for non compliance is that the limits have been set so far below normal natural speeds. The intentions of ISA may good but I think it's poorly thought through, would it only be introduced on new cars? What would that do to vehicle sales? What about the conflict of vehicles with and without? What about filters where a little burst of speed can help with lane merging? What about hitting the limit while overtaking and then not being able to pass in time? The answer as always is to consider speed in proportion to all the other issues, not as the single solution to everything - the inevitable result of the easy money coming from enforcement.[/p][/quote]Normal natural speed? What's that?[/p][/quote]Generally considered to be the 85% percentile dorsetspeed
  • Score: -3

2:42pm Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS-man wrote:
Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car.
Wow, so a number 20 in a circle can even solve the nations obesity problem, and 10% of the NHS budget, incredible
No, people getting out of their cars to walk or cycle will. And that won't happen with people driving cars at speeds that are perfectly safe for those in the cars, but not for vulnerable road users.
I don't think you will find thousands of slobs getting out on bikes just because there a few number 20s around. Another burger shop around the corner may be.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Yes. Residential streets are there for people to live on, not for people to drive through. We need to be encouraging people to walk and cycle, and they are not going to do that with the roads as uninviting as they are now. 10% of the NHS budget is spent on diabetes, a large amount of which is caused directly by being too fat, which can be massively reduced if people travel actively rather than slobbing in a car.[/p][/quote]Wow, so a number 20 in a circle can even solve the nations obesity problem, and 10% of the NHS budget, incredible[/p][/quote]No, people getting out of their cars to walk or cycle will. And that won't happen with people driving cars at speeds that are perfectly safe for those in the cars, but not for vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]I don't think you will find thousands of slobs getting out on bikes just because there a few number 20s around. Another burger shop around the corner may be. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sun 13 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

thanks for NOT answering my points Dorsetspeed- you really should go into politics! I'd love to know what "natural speed" is , something you've made up by the sound of it. Well done twisting what I said about the way that the chance of death/injury drastically falls with a relatively minor reduction in speed at impact , your use of mathematical terms is very impressive i guess but sadly you can't use it as a smokescreen .
Speed regulation devices would no doubt be fitted to new cars , possibly retro-fitted where possible to older cars , some may not be able to be fitted , just as seat belts are / aren't. But over a relatively short period of time the ability of idiots to speed would be quickly reduced. Why would this impact on the sale of cars? There can only be one reason can't there? Come on spit it out, don't be bashful!
If you can't overtake safely without breaking the speed limit then don't overtake at all- a little patience never hurt anyone unlike the opposite.
Please feel free to answer any of the above but please,please tell me what natural normal speed is ! It sounds so mystical , is it something handed down to you from a wise shamen in a dream?
thanks for NOT answering my points Dorsetspeed- you really should go into politics! I'd love to know what "natural speed" is , something you've made up by the sound of it. Well done twisting what I said about the way that the chance of death/injury drastically falls with a relatively minor reduction in speed at impact , your use of mathematical terms is very impressive i guess but sadly you can't use it as a smokescreen . Speed regulation devices would no doubt be fitted to new cars , possibly retro-fitted where possible to older cars , some may not be able to be fitted , just as seat belts are / aren't. But over a relatively short period of time the ability of idiots to speed would be quickly reduced. Why would this impact on the sale of cars? There can only be one reason can't there? Come on spit it out, don't be bashful! If you can't overtake safely without breaking the speed limit then don't overtake at all- a little patience never hurt anyone unlike the opposite. Please feel free to answer any of the above but please,please tell me what natural normal speed is ! It sounds so mystical , is it something handed down to you from a wise shamen in a dream? uvox44
  • Score: 2

5:08pm Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

You're making a bigger meal of "natural safe speed" than you need to. The 85th percentile speed is a good indicator, you can find plenty of info about that if you want.

So if speed limit devices are fitted to new cars, do you think the average driver would be inclined to stick with their old car for longer? Many would not want the freedom to drive at their chosen speed removed from them. Not saying this is how it should be, just how it probably would be.

Nothing impressive about my maths, it's basic stuff and it's correct. I was simply pointing out that you were wrong, and you were, forces and injury increase proportionately with speed, not disproportionately.

It is within the law to overtake. The shorter time you are stuck on the wrong side of the road the safer.

Which points have I not answered?
You're making a bigger meal of "natural safe speed" than you need to. The 85th percentile speed is a good indicator, you can find plenty of info about that if you want. So if speed limit devices are fitted to new cars, do you think the average driver would be inclined to stick with their old car for longer? Many would not want the freedom to drive at their chosen speed removed from them. Not saying this is how it should be, just how it probably would be. Nothing impressive about my maths, it's basic stuff and it's correct. I was simply pointing out that you were wrong, and you were, forces and injury increase proportionately with speed, not disproportionately. It is within the law to overtake. The shorter time you are stuck on the wrong side of the road the safer. Which points have I not answered? dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

6:03pm Sun 13 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

Once again you fail to explain what your mythical "natural normal speed" ( i see the word safe has suddenly appeared from somewhere- do aim to be a bit more consistent if you can - the reason I'm making a "big meal" of it is that you introduced it as an arguement !
So what if the "average" driver sticks with their older car for longer? I frankly don't give a flying **** about car sales ( are you a second hand car dealer by any chance?) I am concerned about safety - and as i stated (and you ignored ) it wouldn't take that long for the effect of the technology to have an effect on speeding.
You are also ignoring the fact (again) that the percentage of people who survive an impact at , say 30mph , are MUCH HIGHER, than those that survive at 40mph - it's about the human bodies ability to withstand trauma - what is so diificult for you to understand about that!!!!
When did i say it was illegal to overtake? Can you try to read what I've actuallly written and stop making things up (top tip- never get a job as a lawyer) - all i said was if you haven't got time to overtake , then don't. i won't hurt you not to ovetake will it? If the car in front is going so close to the speed limit of the road that you have to go that much faster just to get past then doesn't that tell you something in the first place?!
Once again you fail to explain what your mythical "natural normal speed" ( i see the word safe has suddenly appeared from somewhere- do aim to be a bit more consistent if you can - the reason I'm making a "big meal" of it is that you introduced it as an arguement ! So what if the "average" driver sticks with their older car for longer? I frankly don't give a flying **** about car sales ( are you a second hand car dealer by any chance?) I am concerned about safety - and as i stated (and you ignored ) it wouldn't take that long for the effect of the technology to have an effect on speeding. You are also ignoring the fact (again) that the percentage of people who survive an impact at , say 30mph , are MUCH HIGHER, than those that survive at 40mph - it's about the human bodies ability to withstand trauma - what is so diificult for you to understand about that!!!! When did i say it was illegal to overtake? Can you try to read what I've actuallly written and stop making things up (top tip- never get a job as a lawyer) - all i said was if you haven't got time to overtake , then don't. i won't hurt you not to ovetake will it? If the car in front is going so close to the speed limit of the road that you have to go that much faster just to get past then doesn't that tell you something in the first place?! uvox44
  • Score: 1

7:30pm Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

Blimey, ok if you want me to put it in my own words, I would describe "natural normal speed" as the speed you would find a mature driver, not in any kind of hurry, with a long and unblemished driving history choosing based on the characteristics and circumstances on the road at the time including the presence of other users at the time or anything that could conceal where they could come from. You will find that this correlates well as I have said with the 85th percentile speed.

It does not surprise me that you don't care about car sales, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I do, it's good for the economy, the environment, and also road safety - there are cars coming out now with automatic braking. What a shame if this worked but did not have an impact as new cars were not being bought just because of ISA.

I think if you had some cars limited and some not you would increase danger.

No I am not ignoring the fact that a ped hit at 40 is going to be in a much worse state than one hit at 30. 40 is about the limit of survivability. But below that, the effect is proportionate, not disproportionate, to the speed.

You did not say it was illegal to overtake. I said it was allowed and it happens. If someone overtaking suddenly runs out of power I think that could be a very bad thing.
Blimey, ok if you want me to put it in my own words, I would describe "natural normal speed" as the speed you would find a mature driver, not in any kind of hurry, with a long and unblemished driving history choosing based on the characteristics and circumstances on the road at the time including the presence of other users at the time or anything that could conceal where they could come from. You will find that this correlates well as I have said with the 85th percentile speed. It does not surprise me that you don't care about car sales, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I do, it's good for the economy, the environment, and also road safety - there are cars coming out now with automatic braking. What a shame if this worked but did not have an impact as new cars were not being bought just because of ISA. I think if you had some cars limited and some not you would increase danger. No I am not ignoring the fact that a ped hit at 40 is going to be in a much worse state than one hit at 30. 40 is about the limit of survivability. But below that, the effect is proportionate, not disproportionate, to the speed. You did not say it was illegal to overtake. I said it was allowed and it happens. If someone overtaking suddenly runs out of power I think that could be a very bad thing. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -3

8:32pm Sun 13 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

All that dorsetspleen has proven is that he can copy and paste drivel from pro-car websites like the ABD. It's funny that he laps up everything these type of sites have to say like it was Gospel, but dismisses everything written by road safety professionals as rubbish.

Problem is whether it is the square of the velocity or not, it is still the pedestrian/cyclist who is bound to come off worse, no matter how good the car driver is when there is a collision. And he seems to think the right of the motorist to drive as he/she sees fit should override everything else.

I just hope it's not him or one of his relatives injured next by some driver who thinks he knows best.
All that dorsetspleen has proven is that he can copy and paste drivel from pro-car websites like the ABD. It's funny that he laps up everything these type of sites have to say like it was Gospel, but dismisses everything written by road safety professionals as rubbish. Problem is whether it is the square of the velocity or not, it is still the pedestrian/cyclist who is bound to come off worse, no matter how good the car driver is when there is a collision. And he seems to think the right of the motorist to drive as he/she sees fit should override everything else. I just hope it's not him or one of his relatives injured next by some driver who thinks he knows best. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

8:47pm Sun 13 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
All that dorsetspleen has proven is that he can copy and paste drivel from pro-car websites like the ABD. It's funny that he laps up everything these type of sites have to say like it was Gospel, but dismisses everything written by road safety professionals as rubbish.

Problem is whether it is the square of the velocity or not, it is still the pedestrian/cyclist who is bound to come off worse, no matter how good the car driver is when there is a collision. And he seems to think the right of the motorist to drive as he/she sees fit should override everything else.

I just hope it's not him or one of his relatives injured next by some driver who thinks he knows best.
Oh dear. Please demonstrate that I have "copied and pasted" something from ABD, or anywhere else. Please detail anything from any road safety professional I have dismissed as "rubbish" Where have I said the pedestrian does not come off worse. Where have I said that motorists should drive as they like. If one of my relatives, or anyone else for that matter, is injured by bad driving, I will blame the driver, and any authorities who claim that their interventions should have prevented that accident.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: All that dorsetspleen has proven is that he can copy and paste drivel from pro-car websites like the ABD. It's funny that he laps up everything these type of sites have to say like it was Gospel, but dismisses everything written by road safety professionals as rubbish. Problem is whether it is the square of the velocity or not, it is still the pedestrian/cyclist who is bound to come off worse, no matter how good the car driver is when there is a collision. And he seems to think the right of the motorist to drive as he/she sees fit should override everything else. I just hope it's not him or one of his relatives injured next by some driver who thinks he knows best.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Please demonstrate that I have "copied and pasted" something from ABD, or anywhere else. Please detail anything from any road safety professional I have dismissed as "rubbish" Where have I said the pedestrian does not come off worse. Where have I said that motorists should drive as they like. If one of my relatives, or anyone else for that matter, is injured by bad driving, I will blame the driver, and any authorities who claim that their interventions should have prevented that accident. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

10:35pm Sun 13 Jul 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Blimey, ok if you want me to put it in my own words, I would describe "natural normal speed" as the speed you would find a mature driver, not in any kind of hurry, with a long and unblemished driving history choosing based on the characteristics and circumstances on the road at the time including the presence of other users at the time or anything that could conceal where they could come from. You will find that this correlates well as I have said with the 85th percentile speed.

It does not surprise me that you don't care about car sales, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I do, it's good for the economy, the environment, and also road safety - there are cars coming out now with automatic braking. What a shame if this worked but did not have an impact as new cars were not being bought just because of ISA.

I think if you had some cars limited and some not you would increase danger.

No I am not ignoring the fact that a ped hit at 40 is going to be in a much worse state than one hit at 30. 40 is about the limit of survivability. But below that, the effect is proportionate, not disproportionate, to the speed.

You did not say it was illegal to overtake. I said it was allowed and it happens. If someone overtaking suddenly runs out of power I think that could be a very bad thing.
No it isn't you ignoramus. A bullet has a pretty tiny momentum, and yet is incredibly dangerous. It is about the amount of energy that is delivered.

Tool.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Blimey, ok if you want me to put it in my own words, I would describe "natural normal speed" as the speed you would find a mature driver, not in any kind of hurry, with a long and unblemished driving history choosing based on the characteristics and circumstances on the road at the time including the presence of other users at the time or anything that could conceal where they could come from. You will find that this correlates well as I have said with the 85th percentile speed. It does not surprise me that you don't care about car sales, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I do, it's good for the economy, the environment, and also road safety - there are cars coming out now with automatic braking. What a shame if this worked but did not have an impact as new cars were not being bought just because of ISA. I think if you had some cars limited and some not you would increase danger. No I am not ignoring the fact that a ped hit at 40 is going to be in a much worse state than one hit at 30. 40 is about the limit of survivability. But below that, the effect is proportionate, not disproportionate, to the speed. You did not say it was illegal to overtake. I said it was allowed and it happens. If someone overtaking suddenly runs out of power I think that could be a very bad thing.[/p][/quote]No it isn't you ignoramus. A bullet has a pretty tiny momentum, and yet is incredibly dangerous. It is about the amount of energy that is delivered. Tool. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

11:10pm Sun 13 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Blimey, ok if you want me to put it in my own words, I would describe "natural normal speed" as the speed you would find a mature driver, not in any kind of hurry, with a long and unblemished driving history choosing based on the characteristics and circumstances on the road at the time including the presence of other users at the time or anything that could conceal where they could come from. You will find that this correlates well as I have said with the 85th percentile speed.

It does not surprise me that you don't care about car sales, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I do, it's good for the economy, the environment, and also road safety - there are cars coming out now with automatic braking. What a shame if this worked but did not have an impact as new cars were not being bought just because of ISA.

I think if you had some cars limited and some not you would increase danger.

No I am not ignoring the fact that a ped hit at 40 is going to be in a much worse state than one hit at 30. 40 is about the limit of survivability. But below that, the effect is proportionate, not disproportionate, to the speed.

You did not say it was illegal to overtake. I said it was allowed and it happens. If someone overtaking suddenly runs out of power I think that could be a very bad thing.
No it isn't you ignoramus. A bullet has a pretty tiny momentum, and yet is incredibly dangerous. It is about the amount of energy that is delivered.

Tool.
I agree with you FNS.....When pressed into a corner dorsetspleen comes up with desperately sad amounts of tosh to try and justify his stance.

He even tries to invent a new term previously unheard of in scientific circles, the natural normal driving speed. This (even if it did exist as described) may be suitable for a perfectly healthy alert individual driving on a controlled uniform road environment with no external interventions or other physical limitations, such as bends, junctions, parked cars, other road users, child pedestrians. But in the real world we all know that these external factors will impact on our ability to deal with the unexpected.

All his arguments are car-centric and his ego just won't allow him to admit that the road environment is made inherently riskier because of these hazards the driver can't control when driving too fast. That is why young drivers have more crashes. They are more likely to take risks by driving faster etc, but less likely to perceive hazards or identify potentially fatal outcomes if their judgment is lacking.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Blimey, ok if you want me to put it in my own words, I would describe "natural normal speed" as the speed you would find a mature driver, not in any kind of hurry, with a long and unblemished driving history choosing based on the characteristics and circumstances on the road at the time including the presence of other users at the time or anything that could conceal where they could come from. You will find that this correlates well as I have said with the 85th percentile speed. It does not surprise me that you don't care about car sales, I'm looking at the bigger picture and I do, it's good for the economy, the environment, and also road safety - there are cars coming out now with automatic braking. What a shame if this worked but did not have an impact as new cars were not being bought just because of ISA. I think if you had some cars limited and some not you would increase danger. No I am not ignoring the fact that a ped hit at 40 is going to be in a much worse state than one hit at 30. 40 is about the limit of survivability. But below that, the effect is proportionate, not disproportionate, to the speed. You did not say it was illegal to overtake. I said it was allowed and it happens. If someone overtaking suddenly runs out of power I think that could be a very bad thing.[/p][/quote]No it isn't you ignoramus. A bullet has a pretty tiny momentum, and yet is incredibly dangerous. It is about the amount of energy that is delivered. Tool.[/p][/quote]I agree with you FNS.....When pressed into a corner dorsetspleen comes up with desperately sad amounts of tosh to try and justify his stance. He even tries to invent a new term previously unheard of in scientific circles, the natural normal driving speed. This (even if it did exist as described) may be suitable for a perfectly healthy alert individual driving on a controlled uniform road environment with no external interventions or other physical limitations, such as bends, junctions, parked cars, other road users, child pedestrians. But in the real world we all know that these external factors will impact on our ability to deal with the unexpected. All his arguments are car-centric and his ego just won't allow him to admit that the road environment is made inherently riskier because of these hazards the driver can't control when driving too fast. That is why young drivers have more crashes. They are more likely to take risks by driving faster etc, but less likely to perceive hazards or identify potentially fatal outcomes if their judgment is lacking. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

11:19pm Sun 13 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
All that dorsetspleen has proven is that he can copy and paste drivel from pro-car websites like the ABD. It's funny that he laps up everything these type of sites have to say like it was Gospel, but dismisses everything written by road safety professionals as rubbish.

Problem is whether it is the square of the velocity or not, it is still the pedestrian/cyclist who is bound to come off worse, no matter how good the car driver is when there is a collision. And he seems to think the right of the motorist to drive as he/she sees fit should override everything else.

I just hope it's not him or one of his relatives injured next by some driver who thinks he knows best.
Oh dear. Please demonstrate that I have "copied and pasted" something from ABD, or anywhere else. Please detail anything from any road safety professional I have dismissed as "rubbish" Where have I said the pedestrian does not come off worse. Where have I said that motorists should drive as they like. If one of my relatives, or anyone else for that matter, is injured by bad driving, I will blame the driver, and any authorities who claim that their interventions should have prevented that accident.
How about "Actually, momentum is proportional to speed (difference), not disproportionate. Kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared, and this is often used as an argument about vehicles hitting pedestrians. But in this scenario, it is the momentum that matters as it is the pedestrian that experiences the major part of the change in speed."

I have seen this claim on a number of anti-camera websites over the last few years so I can't possibly see how you can make out that it is one of your original thoughts......oh and I have seen this very claim rubbished by any number of professional scientists, so don't even try to use it in future arguments because it is at best lame and at worst bonkers.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: All that dorsetspleen has proven is that he can copy and paste drivel from pro-car websites like the ABD. It's funny that he laps up everything these type of sites have to say like it was Gospel, but dismisses everything written by road safety professionals as rubbish. Problem is whether it is the square of the velocity or not, it is still the pedestrian/cyclist who is bound to come off worse, no matter how good the car driver is when there is a collision. And he seems to think the right of the motorist to drive as he/she sees fit should override everything else. I just hope it's not him or one of his relatives injured next by some driver who thinks he knows best.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Please demonstrate that I have "copied and pasted" something from ABD, or anywhere else. Please detail anything from any road safety professional I have dismissed as "rubbish" Where have I said the pedestrian does not come off worse. Where have I said that motorists should drive as they like. If one of my relatives, or anyone else for that matter, is injured by bad driving, I will blame the driver, and any authorities who claim that their interventions should have prevented that accident.[/p][/quote]How about "Actually, momentum is proportional to speed (difference), not disproportionate. Kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared, and this is often used as an argument about vehicles hitting pedestrians. But in this scenario, it is the momentum that matters as it is the pedestrian that experiences the major part of the change in speed." I have seen this claim on a number of anti-camera websites over the last few years so I can't possibly see how you can make out that it is one of your original thoughts......oh and I have seen this very claim rubbished by any number of professional scientists, so don't even try to use it in future arguments because it is at best lame and at worst bonkers. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

6:50am Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS, tbPoole, the sign of being cornered is when you become emotional and insulting.

Actually having thought about this some more, not even the momentum of the vehicle is all that significant, let me explain:

There are many kinds of collisions with many different characteristics depending on many things, elasticity etc. but in the case of a car hitting a ped it is basically force that breaks things. When force through something exceeds it's strength, it breaks. The force is change of momentum over time, but also dependent on other things, the area and time over which the force is exerted, etc. When the time and area are tiny (example of the bullet) the force is massive.

The energy in the vehicle, even actually the momentum, are not really significant as the car has by far the greater mass. 10 stone is 0.07 tons. Momentum is conserved. So if a 1 ton car hits a person of 14 stone at 30 MPH, the resulting speed would be somewhere between 27MPH and 30MPH. What the pedestrian experiences is an impulse at about 28.5 MPH (subject to the other variables above and others)

Now weld that car on to the front of a 1000 ton train and see what happens at the same speed. The car obviously does not slow whatsoever as the effective momentum and energy have increased massively. What would be the resulting speed on impact? 29.9999 MPH. Very little difference.

This is a simple proof that the extent of the injury, in the case of a vehicle fitting a person has nothing to do with the energy of the vehicle, only it's speed.

As far as your other comments are concerned, tbPoole, you seem to be promoting the idea that what is happening on the road is far more important than can ever be managed by a fixed number and I agree with you there.
FNS, tbPoole, the sign of being cornered is when you become emotional and insulting. Actually having thought about this some more, not even the momentum of the vehicle is all that significant, let me explain: There are many kinds of collisions with many different characteristics depending on many things, elasticity etc. but in the case of a car hitting a ped it is basically force that breaks things. When force through something exceeds it's strength, it breaks. The force is change of momentum over time, but also dependent on other things, the area and time over which the force is exerted, etc. When the time and area are tiny (example of the bullet) the force is massive. The energy in the vehicle, even actually the momentum, are not really significant as the car has by far the greater mass. 10 stone is 0.07 tons. Momentum is conserved. So if a 1 ton car hits a person of 14 stone at 30 MPH, the resulting speed would be somewhere between 27MPH and 30MPH. What the pedestrian experiences is an impulse at about 28.5 MPH (subject to the other variables above and others) Now weld that car on to the front of a 1000 ton train and see what happens at the same speed. The car obviously does not slow whatsoever as the effective momentum and energy have increased massively. What would be the resulting speed on impact? 29.9999 MPH. Very little difference. This is a simple proof that the extent of the injury, in the case of a vehicle fitting a person has nothing to do with the energy of the vehicle, only it's speed. As far as your other comments are concerned, tbPoole, you seem to be promoting the idea that what is happening on the road is far more important than can ever be managed by a fixed number and I agree with you there. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:36am Mon 14 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed - here's a really simple one for you- you cross the road but fail to notice a car - would you rather that car was going at 30 or 20 ? A straightforward answer will do...
If you cross a road and fail to notice a car, regardless of whether that car is doing 20 or 30, you are still at fault not the motorist. Maybe instead of trying to reduce the speed limit of cars down to 20 simply to increase the speeding fine revenue they should introduce jaywalking fines for those who do not know how to safely cross a road.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed - here's a really simple one for you- you cross the road but fail to notice a car - would you rather that car was going at 30 or 20 ? A straightforward answer will do...[/p][/quote]If you cross a road and fail to notice a car, regardless of whether that car is doing 20 or 30, you are still at fault not the motorist. Maybe instead of trying to reduce the speed limit of cars down to 20 simply to increase the speeding fine revenue they should introduce jaywalking fines for those who do not know how to safely cross a road. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

8:08am Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FNS, tbPoole, the sign of being cornered is when you become emotional and insulting.

Actually having thought about this some more, not even the momentum of the vehicle is all that significant, let me explain:

There are many kinds of collisions with many different characteristics depending on many things, elasticity etc. but in the case of a car hitting a ped it is basically force that breaks things. When force through something exceeds it's strength, it breaks. The force is change of momentum over time, but also dependent on other things, the area and time over which the force is exerted, etc. When the time and area are tiny (example of the bullet) the force is massive.

The energy in the vehicle, even actually the momentum, are not really significant as the car has by far the greater mass. 10 stone is 0.07 tons. Momentum is conserved. So if a 1 ton car hits a person of 14 stone at 30 MPH, the resulting speed would be somewhere between 27MPH and 30MPH. What the pedestrian experiences is an impulse at about 28.5 MPH (subject to the other variables above and others)

Now weld that car on to the front of a 1000 ton train and see what happens at the same speed. The car obviously does not slow whatsoever as the effective momentum and energy have increased massively. What would be the resulting speed on impact? 29.9999 MPH. Very little difference.

This is a simple proof that the extent of the injury, in the case of a vehicle fitting a person has nothing to do with the energy of the vehicle, only it's speed.

As far as your other comments are concerned, tbPoole, you seem to be promoting the idea that what is happening on the road is far more important than can ever be managed by a fixed number and I agree with you there.
The sign of dorsetspleen being cornered is when he comes out with pompous comments like 'let me explain'....again I've seen this exact attempt at an explanation on another website, so please don't try to convince us that you've been thinking about this some more. I'll feel so much better if I'm ever struck by a car while walking that you've explained why it won't really matter what speed the car is doing.

Oh and stop drawing your own conclusions on what I've said. You've done enough of that on everyone else comments so it's time to stop.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: FNS, tbPoole, the sign of being cornered is when you become emotional and insulting. Actually having thought about this some more, not even the momentum of the vehicle is all that significant, let me explain: There are many kinds of collisions with many different characteristics depending on many things, elasticity etc. but in the case of a car hitting a ped it is basically force that breaks things. When force through something exceeds it's strength, it breaks. The force is change of momentum over time, but also dependent on other things, the area and time over which the force is exerted, etc. When the time and area are tiny (example of the bullet) the force is massive. The energy in the vehicle, even actually the momentum, are not really significant as the car has by far the greater mass. 10 stone is 0.07 tons. Momentum is conserved. So if a 1 ton car hits a person of 14 stone at 30 MPH, the resulting speed would be somewhere between 27MPH and 30MPH. What the pedestrian experiences is an impulse at about 28.5 MPH (subject to the other variables above and others) Now weld that car on to the front of a 1000 ton train and see what happens at the same speed. The car obviously does not slow whatsoever as the effective momentum and energy have increased massively. What would be the resulting speed on impact? 29.9999 MPH. Very little difference. This is a simple proof that the extent of the injury, in the case of a vehicle fitting a person has nothing to do with the energy of the vehicle, only it's speed. As far as your other comments are concerned, tbPoole, you seem to be promoting the idea that what is happening on the road is far more important than can ever be managed by a fixed number and I agree with you there.[/p][/quote]The sign of dorsetspleen being cornered is when he comes out with pompous comments like 'let me explain'....again I've seen this exact attempt at an explanation on another website, so please don't try to convince us that you've been thinking about this some more. I'll feel so much better if I'm ever struck by a car while walking that you've explained why it won't really matter what speed the car is doing. Oh and stop drawing your own conclusions on what I've said. You've done enough of that on everyone else comments so it's time to stop. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

8:54am Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

dorsetspeed- thanks for your explanation of your made up and frankly useless idea of "natural safe speed" - all I can say is that you seem to want to have it both ways - you say this is the speed that a mature , safe driver etc etc would travel at , yet in a previous post you say that if automatic speed regulation was fitted to new cars then it would delay people buying new cars because " Many would not want the freedom to drive at their chosen speed removed from them. Not saying this is how it should be, just how it probably would be.|"(your words) so you admit that most drivers want to be able to drive at whatever speed they want and admit that you don't think that is a good idea but don't like speed limits either! Like it or not someone has to set a speed limit because , as you say, drivers can't always be trusted to make sane decisions ( all those human egos and failings you see affecting decisions, and no I'm not infallible as a driver BUT i am aware i have a responsibility to others at least) - now I agree sometimes you come across a speed limit that seems a bot slow , this is where maturity comes into play, because instead of getting all het up and feeling victimised by the state (boo hoo) I just stick to the limit because if i don't then it means that no-one else has to and every driver makes their own decision on the safe speed - and we all know where that leads.
So I'm sorry you sometimes have to go a bit more slowly than you feel you should (boo hoo isn't life a ****) but grow up a bit and get over it.
It s impatience and immaturity that causes a lot of accidents , not speed limits being to low.
I'm sorry you don't get what I'm saying about overtaking , I've explained it as simply as I can - if you can't overtake safely then don't overtake at all - I notice you ignored my point that if you need to break the speed limit to get past the vehicle in front it strongly suggested that vehicle is travelling close to the max anyway so why get so het up in the first place?
no i don't care about the economy over safety and I'm proud to say that , you arguement that one major safety technology might delay the introduction of other ones is frankly illogical and I'm coming to the conclusion, as have others on here, that you either work for the motor industry or just rehash their propaganda .
And finally a word for UKIPmarti (why doesn't it surprise me you are a Nigel Farage supporter?!) - so because it is the pedestrians "fault" if they don't see you when they cross the road it's ok to mow them down is it? Children and the elderly don't always make the correct decisions when crossing the road but they are vunerable and therefore you not only have a legal duty to do your best to protect them from harm you also have a MORAL one ( sorry if this offends your UKIP sense of individual freedom)
dorsetspeed- thanks for your explanation of your made up and frankly useless idea of "natural safe speed" - all I can say is that you seem to want to have it both ways - you say this is the speed that a mature , safe driver etc etc would travel at , yet in a previous post you say that if automatic speed regulation was fitted to new cars then it would delay people buying new cars because " Many would not want the freedom to drive at their chosen speed removed from them. Not saying this is how it should be, just how it probably would be.|"(your words) so you admit that most drivers want to be able to drive at whatever speed they want and admit that you don't think that is a good idea but don't like speed limits either! Like it or not someone has to set a speed limit because , as you say, drivers can't always be trusted to make sane decisions ( all those human egos and failings you see affecting decisions, and no I'm not infallible as a driver BUT i am aware i have a responsibility to others at least) - now I agree sometimes you come across a speed limit that seems a bot slow , this is where maturity comes into play, because instead of getting all het up and feeling victimised by the state (boo hoo) I just stick to the limit because if i don't then it means that no-one else has to and every driver makes their own decision on the safe speed - and we all know where that leads. So I'm sorry you sometimes have to go a bit more slowly than you feel you should (boo hoo isn't life a ****) but grow up a bit and get over it. It s impatience and immaturity that causes a lot of accidents , not speed limits being to low. I'm sorry you don't get what I'm saying about overtaking , I've explained it as simply as I can - if you can't overtake safely then don't overtake at all - I notice you ignored my point that if you need to break the speed limit to get past the vehicle in front it strongly suggested that vehicle is travelling close to the max anyway so why get so het up in the first place? no i don't care about the economy over safety and I'm proud to say that , you arguement that one major safety technology might delay the introduction of other ones is frankly illogical and I'm coming to the conclusion, as have others on here, that you either work for the motor industry or just rehash their propaganda . And finally a word for UKIPmarti (why doesn't it surprise me you are a Nigel Farage supporter?!) - so because it is the pedestrians "fault" if they don't see you when they cross the road it's ok to mow them down is it? Children and the elderly don't always make the correct decisions when crossing the road but they are vunerable and therefore you not only have a legal duty to do your best to protect them from harm you also have a MORAL one ( sorry if this offends your UKIP sense of individual freedom) uvox44
  • Score: 2

8:59am Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, it might help if you read what I write, not what you want me to have written to show me as wrong. It makes no difference if what I have written comes from my own thoughts or others - it is still correct.

"I'll feel so much better if I'm ever struck by a car while walking that you've explained why it won't really matter what speed the car is doing." No, I've explained that the speed is the ONLY thing that matters, not the kinetic energy, or square of the speed.
tbpoole, it might help if you read what I write, not what you want me to have written to show me as wrong. It makes no difference if what I have written comes from my own thoughts or others - it is still correct. "I'll feel so much better if I'm ever struck by a car while walking that you've explained why it won't really matter what speed the car is doing." No, I've explained that the speed is the ONLY thing that matters, not the kinetic energy, or square of the speed. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

9:13am Mon 14 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- thanks for your explanation of your made up and frankly useless idea of "natural safe speed" - all I can say is that you seem to want to have it both ways - you say this is the speed that a mature , safe driver etc etc would travel at , yet in a previous post you say that if automatic speed regulation was fitted to new cars then it would delay people buying new cars because " Many would not want the freedom to drive at their chosen speed removed from them. Not saying this is how it should be, just how it probably would be.|"(your words) so you admit that most drivers want to be able to drive at whatever speed they want and admit that you don't think that is a good idea but don't like speed limits either! Like it or not someone has to set a speed limit because , as you say, drivers can't always be trusted to make sane decisions ( all those human egos and failings you see affecting decisions, and no I'm not infallible as a driver BUT i am aware i have a responsibility to others at least) - now I agree sometimes you come across a speed limit that seems a bot slow , this is where maturity comes into play, because instead of getting all het up and feeling victimised by the state (boo hoo) I just stick to the limit because if i don't then it means that no-one else has to and every driver makes their own decision on the safe speed - and we all know where that leads.
So I'm sorry you sometimes have to go a bit more slowly than you feel you should (boo hoo isn't life a ****) but grow up a bit and get over it.
It s impatience and immaturity that causes a lot of accidents , not speed limits being to low.
I'm sorry you don't get what I'm saying about overtaking , I've explained it as simply as I can - if you can't overtake safely then don't overtake at all - I notice you ignored my point that if you need to break the speed limit to get past the vehicle in front it strongly suggested that vehicle is travelling close to the max anyway so why get so het up in the first place?
no i don't care about the economy over safety and I'm proud to say that , you arguement that one major safety technology might delay the introduction of other ones is frankly illogical and I'm coming to the conclusion, as have others on here, that you either work for the motor industry or just rehash their propaganda .
And finally a word for UKIPmarti (why doesn't it surprise me you are a Nigel Farage supporter?!) - so because it is the pedestrians "fault" if they don't see you when they cross the road it's ok to mow them down is it? Children and the elderly don't always make the correct decisions when crossing the road but they are vunerable and therefore you not only have a legal duty to do your best to protect them from harm you also have a MORAL one ( sorry if this offends your UKIP sense of individual freedom)
Your nonsense comment does not offend me in anyway whatsoever, in fact I would go so far as to say it actually amuses me. If someone walks into the road without paying attention it is not the drivers fault. Though at 30 mph the chances are the driver will stop before hitting them, possibly causing themselves some harm in doing so. So if this is all about worrying about those too daft to cross a road sensibly, should that be the point that is addressed. Maybe more crossings are needed rather than 20 mph zones and fine pedestrians who do not use them. What is actually happening here is a trial is being done in Newtown, if motorist do not get involved to stop this nonsense we will see most of Poole become 20 mph and that will lead to the very thing this is really all about, a massive increase in speeding fines throughout Poole to raise extra revenue. Sorry if that offends your LibDem attitude.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- thanks for your explanation of your made up and frankly useless idea of "natural safe speed" - all I can say is that you seem to want to have it both ways - you say this is the speed that a mature , safe driver etc etc would travel at , yet in a previous post you say that if automatic speed regulation was fitted to new cars then it would delay people buying new cars because " Many would not want the freedom to drive at their chosen speed removed from them. Not saying this is how it should be, just how it probably would be.|"(your words) so you admit that most drivers want to be able to drive at whatever speed they want and admit that you don't think that is a good idea but don't like speed limits either! Like it or not someone has to set a speed limit because , as you say, drivers can't always be trusted to make sane decisions ( all those human egos and failings you see affecting decisions, and no I'm not infallible as a driver BUT i am aware i have a responsibility to others at least) - now I agree sometimes you come across a speed limit that seems a bot slow , this is where maturity comes into play, because instead of getting all het up and feeling victimised by the state (boo hoo) I just stick to the limit because if i don't then it means that no-one else has to and every driver makes their own decision on the safe speed - and we all know where that leads. So I'm sorry you sometimes have to go a bit more slowly than you feel you should (boo hoo isn't life a ****) but grow up a bit and get over it. It s impatience and immaturity that causes a lot of accidents , not speed limits being to low. I'm sorry you don't get what I'm saying about overtaking , I've explained it as simply as I can - if you can't overtake safely then don't overtake at all - I notice you ignored my point that if you need to break the speed limit to get past the vehicle in front it strongly suggested that vehicle is travelling close to the max anyway so why get so het up in the first place? no i don't care about the economy over safety and I'm proud to say that , you arguement that one major safety technology might delay the introduction of other ones is frankly illogical and I'm coming to the conclusion, as have others on here, that you either work for the motor industry or just rehash their propaganda . And finally a word for UKIPmarti (why doesn't it surprise me you are a Nigel Farage supporter?!) - so because it is the pedestrians "fault" if they don't see you when they cross the road it's ok to mow them down is it? Children and the elderly don't always make the correct decisions when crossing the road but they are vunerable and therefore you not only have a legal duty to do your best to protect them from harm you also have a MORAL one ( sorry if this offends your UKIP sense of individual freedom)[/p][/quote]Your nonsense comment does not offend me in anyway whatsoever, in fact I would go so far as to say it actually amuses me. If someone walks into the road without paying attention it is not the drivers fault. Though at 30 mph the chances are the driver will stop before hitting them, possibly causing themselves some harm in doing so. So if this is all about worrying about those too daft to cross a road sensibly, should that be the point that is addressed. Maybe more crossings are needed rather than 20 mph zones and fine pedestrians who do not use them. What is actually happening here is a trial is being done in Newtown, if motorist do not get involved to stop this nonsense we will see most of Poole become 20 mph and that will lead to the very thing this is really all about, a massive increase in speeding fines throughout Poole to raise extra revenue. Sorry if that offends your LibDem attitude. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -2

9:27am Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

Marti - please anarcho-socialist if you please! Are children too daft to cross the road sensibly? Are the elderly, including those with dementia, too daft to cross the road sensibly? possibly they are, yes, but that just means that YOU in your heavy, protected environment have even more of a legal and moral duty to protect them - it's extremely unlikely that a driver will harm themselves stoppping from 30mph but if you feel that is likely you know the answer- slow down! Yes there should be more pedestrian crossings, but then I guessing motorists would complain because after all they are the most important people on the planet- strange how their journeys are soooo much more important than those who chose to use more ecological and slower modes of transport (and healthier too) -hey you can call me a tree-hugger too now! (but if you do i will take it as a compliment )
Come on Dorset speed , cat got your tongue or are you ringing the BDA helpline to get some more propaganda?
Marti - please anarcho-socialist if you please! Are children too daft to cross the road sensibly? Are the elderly, including those with dementia, too daft to cross the road sensibly? possibly they are, yes, but that just means that YOU in your heavy, protected environment have even more of a legal and moral duty to protect them - it's extremely unlikely that a driver will harm themselves stoppping from 30mph but if you feel that is likely you know the answer- slow down! Yes there should be more pedestrian crossings, but then I guessing motorists would complain because after all they are the most important people on the planet- strange how their journeys are soooo much more important than those who chose to use more ecological and slower modes of transport (and healthier too) -hey you can call me a tree-hugger too now! (but if you do i will take it as a compliment ) Come on Dorset speed , cat got your tongue or are you ringing the BDA helpline to get some more propaganda? uvox44
  • Score: 2

9:32am Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

oh and one final point Marti- on crossings - it would help if drivers were aware enough NOT to overtake a bus that has stopped to let someone cross on a zebra crossing as happened to me in Poole recently- so even crossing the road correctly doesn't guarrantee safety from the dim-witted and impatient motorist does it?
oh and one final point Marti- on crossings - it would help if drivers were aware enough NOT to overtake a bus that has stopped to let someone cross on a zebra crossing as happened to me in Poole recently- so even crossing the road correctly doesn't guarrantee safety from the dim-witted and impatient motorist does it? uvox44
  • Score: 2

9:34am Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44, you are still ignoring the point that what I am describing is what is likely to actually happen, not necessarily what should happen. It is what actually happens on the roads that matters, not what should happen.
uvox44, you are still ignoring the point that what I am describing is what is likely to actually happen, not necessarily what should happen. It is what actually happens on the roads that matters, not what should happen. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:39am Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44, when I am in an area where there could be children or elderly people, or anything from behind which they could appear, my eyes are firmly on the road and my speed probably well below 20. Anyone that needs a number in a circle to be safe in such circumstances is likely to be so incompetent that if it were there they would ignore it anyway. This is the main reason that 20 limits do not reduce casualties.
uvox44, when I am in an area where there could be children or elderly people, or anything from behind which they could appear, my eyes are firmly on the road and my speed probably well below 20. Anyone that needs a number in a circle to be safe in such circumstances is likely to be so incompetent that if it were there they would ignore it anyway. This is the main reason that 20 limits do not reduce casualties. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:56am Mon 14 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
oh and one final point Marti- on crossings - it would help if drivers were aware enough NOT to overtake a bus that has stopped to let someone cross on a zebra crossing as happened to me in Poole recently- so even crossing the road correctly doesn't guarrantee safety from the dim-witted and impatient motorist does it?
Sometimes that does prove a little difficult when the lunacy of the planning department here in Poole decide to put bus stops directly on the exit of a roundabout and place a zebra crossing in front of that bus stop, like they have at the Seaview roundabout. That is without doubt the most ludicrous piece of planning I have seen and I even went to the consultation meeting and pointed that out to them before they did this. It is an accident waiting to happen and anyone can see that. You seem to come across as someone who is obsessed with banning cars all together and fail to understand that the majority of road users are sensible drivers like me who do look out of unexpected hazards on the roads. In thirty years of driving I have never knocked anyone over or hit a cyclist and I don't need to be told to drive at 20 mph to ensure that doesn't happen.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: oh and one final point Marti- on crossings - it would help if drivers were aware enough NOT to overtake a bus that has stopped to let someone cross on a zebra crossing as happened to me in Poole recently- so even crossing the road correctly doesn't guarrantee safety from the dim-witted and impatient motorist does it?[/p][/quote]Sometimes that does prove a little difficult when the lunacy of the planning department here in Poole decide to put bus stops directly on the exit of a roundabout and place a zebra crossing in front of that bus stop, like they have at the Seaview roundabout. That is without doubt the most ludicrous piece of planning I have seen and I even went to the consultation meeting and pointed that out to them before they did this. It is an accident waiting to happen and anyone can see that. You seem to come across as someone who is obsessed with banning cars all together and fail to understand that the majority of road users are sensible drivers like me who do look out of unexpected hazards on the roads. In thirty years of driving I have never knocked anyone over or hit a cyclist and I don't need to be told to drive at 20 mph to ensure that doesn't happen. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

11:47am Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

marti- i totally agree with you about Seaview , it is bad road design. However this was on Lagland street where that is not the case. I am not anti-car , I have a car , i also cycle and I drive a bus for my job so i think I have a pretty balanced view, to answer both you and Dorsetspeed on the issue of bad drivers ignoring speed limit anyway so why bother with them , that is a bit like saying why making illegal to rob a bank because criminally minded people will still do it anyway! The law is there not for the reasonable and responsible , it is there for the idiots and the ones that don't care.
marti- i totally agree with you about Seaview , it is bad road design. However this was on Lagland street where that is not the case. I am not anti-car , I have a car , i also cycle and I drive a bus for my job so i think I have a pretty balanced view, to answer both you and Dorsetspeed on the issue of bad drivers ignoring speed limit anyway so why bother with them , that is a bit like saying why making illegal to rob a bank because criminally minded people will still do it anyway! The law is there not for the reasonable and responsible , it is there for the idiots and the ones that don't care. uvox44
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help.

Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need.
We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help. Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

12:13pm Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

dorset speed - two questions: what are sensible limits and who decides this?
If enforcing speed limits makes so much money , and given speeding is so universally prevalent, then why aren't there speed cameras/ radar traps on every corner? Generally the Govt doesn't miss a trick to make an easy buck so if what you say is true can you explain why so few speeders are actually caught?
dorset speed - two questions: what are sensible limits and who decides this? If enforcing speed limits makes so much money , and given speeding is so universally prevalent, then why aren't there speed cameras/ radar traps on every corner? Generally the Govt doesn't miss a trick to make an easy buck so if what you say is true can you explain why so few speeders are actually caught? uvox44
  • Score: 1

12:22pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorset speed - two questions: what are sensible limits and who decides this? If enforcing speed limits makes so much money , and given speeding is so universally prevalent, then why aren't there speed cameras/ radar traps on every corner? Generally the Govt doesn't miss a trick to make an easy buck so if what you say is true can you explain why so few speeders are actually caught?
Pauses while dorsetspleen looks up the 'answer' on the Alliance of British Drivers website then copies and pastes it here.......
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorset speed - two questions: what are sensible limits and who decides this? If enforcing speed limits makes so much money , and given speeding is so universally prevalent, then why aren't there speed cameras/ radar traps on every corner? Generally the Govt doesn't miss a trick to make an easy buck so if what you say is true can you explain why so few speeders are actually caught?[/p][/quote]Pauses while dorsetspleen looks up the 'answer' on the Alliance of British Drivers website then copies and pastes it here....... tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

Sensible limits are not for example 50 on the Dorset Way - this is below even the average measured speed by 20% and only because Poole Council thought a 60 limit would be "confusing" and it would have to talk to the DfT (I know how difficult that is).

Basically, engineers should set limits, not councillors.

Those currently running and involved, employed etc. by the speed industry have a status quo, they are making a good living but if they pushed it any harder they simply wouldn't get away with it.
Sensible limits are not for example 50 on the Dorset Way - this is below even the average measured speed by 20% and only because Poole Council thought a 60 limit would be "confusing" and it would have to talk to the DfT (I know how difficult that is). Basically, engineers should set limits, not councillors. Those currently running and involved, employed etc. by the speed industry have a status quo, they are making a good living but if they pushed it any harder they simply wouldn't get away with it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

12:29pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help. Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need.
I don't equate138,660 injury accidents on UK roads in 2013 with 'harmless behaviour'. Of course it's about safety.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help. Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need.[/p][/quote]I don't equate138,660 injury accidents on UK roads in 2013 with 'harmless behaviour'. Of course it's about safety. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help. Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need.
I don't equate138,660 injury accidents on UK roads in 2013 with 'harmless behaviour'. Of course it's about safety.
Of course, some speeding is harmful. But much of it is not. It is the harmless speeding, not the harmful speeding, that raises all the money.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help. Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need.[/p][/quote]I don't equate138,660 injury accidents on UK roads in 2013 with 'harmless behaviour'. Of course it's about safety.[/p][/quote]Of course, some speeding is harmful. But much of it is not. It is the harmless speeding, not the harmful speeding, that raises all the money. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
marti- i totally agree with you about Seaview , it is bad road design. However this was on Lagland street where that is not the case. I am not anti-car , I have a car , i also cycle and I drive a bus for my job so i think I have a pretty balanced view, to answer both you and Dorsetspeed on the issue of bad drivers ignoring speed limit anyway so why bother with them , that is a bit like saying why making illegal to rob a bank because criminally minded people will still do it anyway! The law is there not for the reasonable and responsible , it is there for the idiots and the ones that don't care.
Robbing banks is illegal much like driving over 30 is illegal on a 30 mph road, the philosophy you are trying to use here is on par with saying lets only open the banks for 30 minutes a day because that will reduce bank robberies. Utter nonsense really as if someone is intent on breaking the speed limit they will do so regardless if that is 20 or 30, but as normal, people like you and the council are only to happy to penalise the majority because of a minority.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: marti- i totally agree with you about Seaview , it is bad road design. However this was on Lagland street where that is not the case. I am not anti-car , I have a car , i also cycle and I drive a bus for my job so i think I have a pretty balanced view, to answer both you and Dorsetspeed on the issue of bad drivers ignoring speed limit anyway so why bother with them , that is a bit like saying why making illegal to rob a bank because criminally minded people will still do it anyway! The law is there not for the reasonable and responsible , it is there for the idiots and the ones that don't care.[/p][/quote]Robbing banks is illegal much like driving over 30 is illegal on a 30 mph road, the philosophy you are trying to use here is on par with saying lets only open the banks for 30 minutes a day because that will reduce bank robberies. Utter nonsense really as if someone is intent on breaking the speed limit they will do so regardless if that is 20 or 30, but as normal, people like you and the council are only to happy to penalise the majority because of a minority. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

1:02pm Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

wow marti - you take missing the point to a whole new level! The law applies to everyone , i don't get offended by a law that says robbery is illegal just because i have never robbed nor never intend to rob, i understand that the law is there to stop / deter those who would otherwise commit the robbery / speed. If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?
wow marti - you take missing the point to a whole new level! The law applies to everyone , i don't get offended by a law that says robbery is illegal just because i have never robbed nor never intend to rob, i understand that the law is there to stop / deter those who would otherwise commit the robbery / speed. If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you? uvox44
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help. Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need.
I don't equate138,660 injury accidents on UK roads in 2013 with 'harmless behaviour'. Of course it's about safety.
Of course, some speeding is harmful. But much of it is not. It is the harmless speeding, not the harmful speeding, that raises all the money.
Much of it is 'not harmful' - what a joke!

Much of it goes unpunished or the driver gets away without having a crash.

That doesn't justify it or make it acceptable or the norm.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: We should have speed limits, and speed limits are pointless unless enforced. But the reason that there is such objection to limits and enforcements is that limits are becoming too low, such that they interfere with normal harmless responsible behaviour, and enforcements are optimised to make money. None of this is about safety. The attention to speed is now completely out of proportion to its contribution towards road trauma, in fact this is dangerous as it removes the attention from the real issues and what might genuinely help. Sensible limits properly enforced in proportion to other traffic laws is quite simply what we need.[/p][/quote]I don't equate138,660 injury accidents on UK roads in 2013 with 'harmless behaviour'. Of course it's about safety.[/p][/quote]Of course, some speeding is harmful. But much of it is not. It is the harmless speeding, not the harmful speeding, that raises all the money.[/p][/quote]Much of it is 'not harmful' - what a joke! Much of it goes unpunished or the driver gets away without having a crash. That doesn't justify it or make it acceptable or the norm. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

1:39pm Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

ok dorsetspeed , so it is for engineers to decide what a sensible speed limit is- you have said that. Are you an engineer? I presume you must be as you seem to feel you can judge what is / isn't a sensible limit and what harmful and harmless speeding is - please don't keep everyone in suspense, are you in fact an engineer ( whatever that vague catch-all term means) ? I'm going to stick by neck out here and say you may not be? Am i getting warm? If you , perchance, are not an engineer, and therefore by your own admission unqualified to know what a sensible speed limit is, why do you keep making comments ?
ok dorsetspeed , so it is for engineers to decide what a sensible speed limit is- you have said that. Are you an engineer? I presume you must be as you seem to feel you can judge what is / isn't a sensible limit and what harmful and harmless speeding is - please don't keep everyone in suspense, are you in fact an engineer ( whatever that vague catch-all term means) ? I'm going to stick by neck out here and say you may not be? Am i getting warm? If you , perchance, are not an engineer, and therefore by your own admission unqualified to know what a sensible speed limit is, why do you keep making comments ? uvox44
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
ok dorsetspeed , so it is for engineers to decide what a sensible speed limit is- you have said that. Are you an engineer? I presume you must be as you seem to feel you can judge what is / isn't a sensible limit and what harmful and harmless speeding is - please don't keep everyone in suspense, are you in fact an engineer ( whatever that vague catch-all term means) ? I'm going to stick by neck out here and say you may not be? Am i getting warm? If you , perchance, are not an engineer, and therefore by your own admission unqualified to know what a sensible speed limit is, why do you keep making comments ?
You do not need to be an engineer to know that 30 is a sensible speed especially if you have been driving for many years. As this 20 mph fiasco seems to be on a national basis I suspect it has far more to do with the EU than anything else.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: ok dorsetspeed , so it is for engineers to decide what a sensible speed limit is- you have said that. Are you an engineer? I presume you must be as you seem to feel you can judge what is / isn't a sensible limit and what harmful and harmless speeding is - please don't keep everyone in suspense, are you in fact an engineer ( whatever that vague catch-all term means) ? I'm going to stick by neck out here and say you may not be? Am i getting warm? If you , perchance, are not an engineer, and therefore by your own admission unqualified to know what a sensible speed limit is, why do you keep making comments ?[/p][/quote]You do not need to be an engineer to know that 30 is a sensible speed especially if you have been driving for many years. As this 20 mph fiasco seems to be on a national basis I suspect it has far more to do with the EU than anything else. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud.

uvox44 , I don't need to be an engineer to work that out, or to recognise bad decisions when I see them.

But as you ask, yes I am an engineer, I head up an r+d team in robotics and machine control. I have spent the last year upgrading the axis control systems to very high speed, as such I probably know more about the physics of movement than most people.

I don't know why you 2 keep fighting the obvious truth.
tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud. uvox44 , I don't need to be an engineer to work that out, or to recognise bad decisions when I see them. But as you ask, yes I am an engineer, I head up an r+d team in robotics and machine control. I have spent the last year upgrading the axis control systems to very high speed, as such I probably know more about the physics of movement than most people. I don't know why you 2 keep fighting the obvious truth. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Victor_Meldrew_Lives! says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Sensible limits are not for example 50 on the Dorset Way - this is below even the average measured speed by 20% and only because Poole Council thought a 60 limit would be "confusing" and it would have to talk to the DfT (I know how difficult that is).

Basically, engineers should set limits, not councillors.

Those currently running and involved, employed etc. by the speed industry have a status quo, they are making a good living but if they pushed it any harder they simply wouldn't get away with it.
Poole council are confused. If the signs said 60 how could that be confusing. Total idiots. Sounds like their stupid argument that part time traffic lights at Fleetsbridge were confusing. Only for people who should give up driving would they be confusing. There shouldn't be traffic lights at Fleetsbridge or Mountbatten. Waste of time.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Sensible limits are not for example 50 on the Dorset Way - this is below even the average measured speed by 20% and only because Poole Council thought a 60 limit would be "confusing" and it would have to talk to the DfT (I know how difficult that is). Basically, engineers should set limits, not councillors. Those currently running and involved, employed etc. by the speed industry have a status quo, they are making a good living but if they pushed it any harder they simply wouldn't get away with it.[/p][/quote]Poole council are confused. If the signs said 60 how could that be confusing. Total idiots. Sounds like their stupid argument that part time traffic lights at Fleetsbridge were confusing. Only for people who should give up driving would they be confusing. There shouldn't be traffic lights at Fleetsbridge or Mountbatten. Waste of time. Victor_Meldrew_Lives!
  • Score: 3

3:28pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

"tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud. "

I'm so glad that you credit yourself for dictating policy policy........perhap
s they needed the funding to pay for all the staff time you have wasted relentlessly pursuing your useless arguments.
"tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud. " I'm so glad that you credit yourself for dictating policy policy........perhap s they needed the funding to pay for all the staff time you have wasted relentlessly pursuing your useless arguments. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

3:56pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
"tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud. "

I'm so glad that you credit yourself for dictating policy policy........perhap

s they needed the funding to pay for all the staff time you have wasted relentlessly pursuing your useless arguments.
As I have said before, it is not me that has turned the very simple question about what the course cost is into a 3 year farce wasting probabaly 10s of thousands of pounds, it is them. Why are they so afraid of revealing the answer? Perhaps we will find out very soon when I meet with Mr Underhill on the 24th.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: "tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud. " I'm so glad that you credit yourself for dictating policy policy........perhap s they needed the funding to pay for all the staff time you have wasted relentlessly pursuing your useless arguments.[/p][/quote]As I have said before, it is not me that has turned the very simple question about what the course cost is into a 3 year farce wasting probabaly 10s of thousands of pounds, it is them. Why are they so afraid of revealing the answer? Perhaps we will find out very soon when I meet with Mr Underhill on the 24th. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

4:00pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
wow marti - you take missing the point to a whole new level! The law applies to everyone , i don't get offended by a law that says robbery is illegal just because i have never robbed nor never intend to rob, i understand that the law is there to stop / deter those who would otherwise commit the robbery / speed. If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?
The point that you seem to be missing is the simple fact that I and many others are more than happy to stick to the 30 mph speed limit and even slow down when I see kids around or other hazardous situations, I object to the 20 mph simply because I think it is a no brainer, except around schools. If the Newtown project gets accepted by council and then they reduce the speed to 20 around all of Poole it will cause much greater problems than already exist. I find it somewhat incredible that you cannot see that.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: wow marti - you take missing the point to a whole new level! The law applies to everyone , i don't get offended by a law that says robbery is illegal just because i have never robbed nor never intend to rob, i understand that the law is there to stop / deter those who would otherwise commit the robbery / speed. If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?[/p][/quote]The point that you seem to be missing is the simple fact that I and many others are more than happy to stick to the 30 mph speed limit and even slow down when I see kids around or other hazardous situations, I object to the 20 mph simply because I think it is a no brainer, except around schools. If the Newtown project gets accepted by council and then they reduce the speed to 20 around all of Poole it will cause much greater problems than already exist. I find it somewhat incredible that you cannot see that. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

4:06pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

"If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?"

We are all "penalised" by incompetent and dishonest authorities whether we speed or not. We are all at increased risk on the roads, our costs are higher, our productivity reduced.
"If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?" We are all "penalised" by incompetent and dishonest authorities whether we speed or not. We are all at increased risk on the roads, our costs are higher, our productivity reduced. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

marti the speed limit is a law , not something that drivers can accept or not according to their opinion of it - you make it sound like you are doing everyone a favour by sticking to the 30 limit and slowing down around schools ! It is your legal and moral duty to do so , not a voluntary option!
marti the speed limit is a law , not something that drivers can accept or not according to their opinion of it - you make it sound like you are doing everyone a favour by sticking to the 30 limit and slowing down around schools ! It is your legal and moral duty to do so , not a voluntary option! uvox44
  • Score: 3

4:17pm Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

i'm giving up replying to your post dorsetspeed as even a politician wouldn't ignore/evade questions as blantantly as you do.
i'm giving up replying to your post dorsetspeed as even a politician wouldn't ignore/evade questions as blantantly as you do. uvox44
  • Score: 1

4:20pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
i'm giving up replying to your post dorsetspeed as even a politician wouldn't ignore/evade questions as blantantly as you do.
Can you just give me one example of something I have ignored or evaded?
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: i'm giving up replying to your post dorsetspeed as even a politician wouldn't ignore/evade questions as blantantly as you do.[/p][/quote]Can you just give me one example of something I have ignored or evaded? dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

4:50pm Mon 14 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

apologies dorset speed missed your reply above
apologies dorset speed missed your reply above uvox44
  • Score: 1

5:36pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
"If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?"

We are all "penalised" by incompetent and dishonest authorities whether we speed or not. We are all at increased risk on the roads, our costs are higher, our productivity reduced.
Who is descending to making defamatory remarks now then?

Where is your evidence to back up your allegations, other than on your/ABD websites.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?" We are all "penalised" by incompetent and dishonest authorities whether we speed or not. We are all at increased risk on the roads, our costs are higher, our productivity reduced.[/p][/quote]Who is descending to making defamatory remarks now then? Where is your evidence to back up your allegations, other than on your/ABD websites. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

5:39pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
"tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud. "

I'm so glad that you credit yourself for dictating policy policy........perhap


s they needed the funding to pay for all the staff time you have wasted relentlessly pursuing your useless arguments.
As I have said before, it is not me that has turned the very simple question about what the course cost is into a 3 year farce wasting probabaly 10s of thousands of pounds, it is them. Why are they so afraid of revealing the answer? Perhaps we will find out very soon when I meet with Mr Underhill on the 24th.
Poor Mr Underhill, I pity him having to listen to you droning on...
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: "tbpoole, a large proportion of recent "offences" in Dorset were harmless, by Dorset Polices own admission - the greed on green camera was not for safety (well they said it was initially but then had to change their story when I forced the data out of them demonstrating not only the profit but the complete lack of any KSIs that was resulting from the ever so harmful "speeding") They then said the enforcement was not about casualty reduction. If the enforcement was not, how could the limit have been? They then said it was about "community concern" but that was a lie too as then were unable to quantify any level of it. But they did make a £million. By the way, I'd call that "obtaining money by false pretences", or fraud. " I'm so glad that you credit yourself for dictating policy policy........perhap s they needed the funding to pay for all the staff time you have wasted relentlessly pursuing your useless arguments.[/p][/quote]As I have said before, it is not me that has turned the very simple question about what the course cost is into a 3 year farce wasting probabaly 10s of thousands of pounds, it is them. Why are they so afraid of revealing the answer? Perhaps we will find out very soon when I meet with Mr Underhill on the 24th.[/p][/quote]Poor Mr Underhill, I pity him having to listen to you droning on... tbpoole
  • Score: 1

5:53pm Mon 14 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
"If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?"

We are all "penalised" by incompetent and dishonest authorities whether we speed or not. We are all at increased risk on the roads, our costs are higher, our productivity reduced.
Who is descending to making defamatory remarks now then?

Where is your evidence to back up your allegations, other than on your/ABD websites.
Just above, see my comments on the greed on green
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "If you don't speed, as you say you don't, then don't worry , you won't be penalised will you?" We are all "penalised" by incompetent and dishonest authorities whether we speed or not. We are all at increased risk on the roads, our costs are higher, our productivity reduced.[/p][/quote]Who is descending to making defamatory remarks now then? Where is your evidence to back up your allegations, other than on your/ABD websites.[/p][/quote]Just above, see my comments on the greed on green dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

8:48pm Mon 14 Jul 14

stevesuk says...

xena dion wrote:
i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....
The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary!
[quote][p][bold]xena dion[/bold] wrote: i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....[/p][/quote]The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary! stevesuk
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Mon 14 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

stevesuk wrote:
xena dion wrote:
i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....
The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary!
What about people not on line, or who don't look at this website, on holiday etc.? Sounds open to fraud too.
[quote][p][bold]stevesuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xena dion[/bold] wrote: i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....[/p][/quote]The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary![/p][/quote]What about people not on line, or who don't look at this website, on holiday etc.? Sounds open to fraud too. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

11:18pm Mon 14 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

stevesuk wrote:
xena dion wrote:
i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....
The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary!
I have been working on a project called My Better Community, it is a forum designed exclusively for the people of Poole covering all 16 wards, where local people can share ideas and work together on various issues affecting Poole. It's there, it's free to use and can be tailored for individual group needs if requested. A lot of people do not realise they already have the power through the localism Act but that is only achievable if people organise themselves. It is still in project stage but if anyone wants to get involved feel free to register on www.mbc-services.co.
uk and rest assured MBC is about people not politics.
[quote][p][bold]stevesuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xena dion[/bold] wrote: i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....[/p][/quote]The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary![/p][/quote]I have been working on a project called My Better Community, it is a forum designed exclusively for the people of Poole covering all 16 wards, where local people can share ideas and work together on various issues affecting Poole. It's there, it's free to use and can be tailored for individual group needs if requested. A lot of people do not realise they already have the power through the localism Act but that is only achievable if people organise themselves. It is still in project stage but if anyone wants to get involved feel free to register on www.mbc-services.co. uk and rest assured MBC is about people not politics. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

9:15am Tue 15 Jul 14

speedy231278 says...

No need for 20 limits or speed humps, and every need to teach people the Green Cross Code and reduce the amount of on street parking to increase visibility of pedestrians and road users to one another.
No need for 20 limits or speed humps, and every need to teach people the Green Cross Code and reduce the amount of on street parking to increase visibility of pedestrians and road users to one another. speedy231278
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Tue 15 Jul 14

stevesuk says...

Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
stevesuk wrote:
xena dion wrote:
i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....
The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary!
I have been working on a project called My Better Community, it is a forum designed exclusively for the people of Poole covering all 16 wards, where local people can share ideas and work together on various issues affecting Poole. It's there, it's free to use and can be tailored for individual group needs if requested. A lot of people do not realise they already have the power through the localism Act but that is only achievable if people organise themselves. It is still in project stage but if anyone wants to get involved feel free to register on www.mbc-services.co.

uk and rest assured MBC is about people not politics.
A good initiative Marty Caine, but I feel that for it to work it would have to be part of the Borough of Poole website, and promoted by BoP. Someone else mentioned about fraud. Why would it be any more open to fraud than arranging for people from outside the area to fill in petitions, or to launch a letter writing campaign to influence the council. I'm not talking about casting votes online, just having somewhere to post your agreement or disagreement with ideas. Going a bit off topic now, but my suggestion would be that when the council mail out the annual council tax bill letter, they could send each household an activation code, which would be used to sign up for the website. Since you would need to have received the letter to your home address via the postal mail, it would be taking steps to maintain some level of validation. As to what about people who don't use the internet? They still have neighbourhood meetings, councillors to talk to etc. Here in Broadstone it seems that if you don't attend neighbourhood meetings or get involved with the residents association, your view simply doesn't matter to anyone - and you have no way of voicing your disagreement - and I disagree with many, many things that are suggested in Broadstone... but that's another matter :-) Many of us work long hours and have families to look after - and don't have the time to get involved in all this stuff. But would still welcome being able to spend a few minutes of "down time" checking out what the council is planning to do, and to have a say on shaping the future of the borough - we all pay council tax after all.
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevesuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xena dion[/bold] wrote: i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....[/p][/quote]The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary![/p][/quote]I have been working on a project called My Better Community, it is a forum designed exclusively for the people of Poole covering all 16 wards, where local people can share ideas and work together on various issues affecting Poole. It's there, it's free to use and can be tailored for individual group needs if requested. A lot of people do not realise they already have the power through the localism Act but that is only achievable if people organise themselves. It is still in project stage but if anyone wants to get involved feel free to register on www.mbc-services.co. uk and rest assured MBC is about people not politics.[/p][/quote]A good initiative Marty Caine, but I feel that for it to work it would have to be part of the Borough of Poole website, and promoted by BoP. Someone else mentioned about fraud. Why would it be any more open to fraud than arranging for people from outside the area to fill in petitions, or to launch a letter writing campaign to influence the council. I'm not talking about casting votes online, just having somewhere to post your agreement or disagreement with ideas. Going a bit off topic now, but my suggestion would be that when the council mail out the annual council tax bill letter, they could send each household an activation code, which would be used to sign up for the website. Since you would need to have received the letter to your home address via the postal mail, it would be taking steps to maintain some level of validation. As to what about people who don't use the internet? They still have neighbourhood meetings, councillors to talk to etc. Here in Broadstone it seems that if you don't attend neighbourhood meetings or get involved with the residents association, your view simply doesn't matter to anyone - and you have no way of voicing your disagreement - and I disagree with many, many things that are suggested in Broadstone... but that's another matter :-) Many of us work long hours and have families to look after - and don't have the time to get involved in all this stuff. But would still welcome being able to spend a few minutes of "down time" checking out what the council is planning to do, and to have a say on shaping the future of the borough - we all pay council tax after all. stevesuk
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Tue 15 Jul 14

stevesuk says...

By the way Daily Echo and BoP, the link given in the article (boroughofpoole.com/
roadsafety) doesn't contain a form, but instead a load of text about how wonderful 20 MPH zones are...
By the way Daily Echo and BoP, the link given in the article (boroughofpoole.com/ roadsafety) doesn't contain a form, but instead a load of text about how wonderful 20 MPH zones are... stevesuk
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Evmeister says...

I know it's going off on a slight tangent but if the real reason behind this campaign is safety the council should look at the parking around schools. I live near a school and the way that people park is ludicrous. In fact I would like to see how the same people would be treated should they park along Ashley Road. There is often a camera car and traffic wardens but no action is ever taken. If the council really want to make school roads safer they should start with the obstacles caused by incorrect parking. Are double yellow lines ignored elsewhere and do the council turn a blind eye to people parking on double yellow lines elsewhere. The answer is no and as usual double standards are being applied.
I know it's going off on a slight tangent but if the real reason behind this campaign is safety the council should look at the parking around schools. I live near a school and the way that people park is ludicrous. In fact I would like to see how the same people would be treated should they park along Ashley Road. There is often a camera car and traffic wardens but no action is ever taken. If the council really want to make school roads safer they should start with the obstacles caused by incorrect parking. Are double yellow lines ignored elsewhere and do the council turn a blind eye to people parking on double yellow lines elsewhere. The answer is no and as usual double standards are being applied. Evmeister
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

stevesuk wrote:
Marty Caine UKIP wrote:
stevesuk wrote:
xena dion wrote:
i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....
The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary!
I have been working on a project called My Better Community, it is a forum designed exclusively for the people of Poole covering all 16 wards, where local people can share ideas and work together on various issues affecting Poole. It's there, it's free to use and can be tailored for individual group needs if requested. A lot of people do not realise they already have the power through the localism Act but that is only achievable if people organise themselves. It is still in project stage but if anyone wants to get involved feel free to register on www.mbc-services.co.


uk and rest assured MBC is about people not politics.
A good initiative Marty Caine, but I feel that for it to work it would have to be part of the Borough of Poole website, and promoted by BoP. Someone else mentioned about fraud. Why would it be any more open to fraud than arranging for people from outside the area to fill in petitions, or to launch a letter writing campaign to influence the council. I'm not talking about casting votes online, just having somewhere to post your agreement or disagreement with ideas. Going a bit off topic now, but my suggestion would be that when the council mail out the annual council tax bill letter, they could send each household an activation code, which would be used to sign up for the website. Since you would need to have received the letter to your home address via the postal mail, it would be taking steps to maintain some level of validation. As to what about people who don't use the internet? They still have neighbourhood meetings, councillors to talk to etc. Here in Broadstone it seems that if you don't attend neighbourhood meetings or get involved with the residents association, your view simply doesn't matter to anyone - and you have no way of voicing your disagreement - and I disagree with many, many things that are suggested in Broadstone... but that's another matter :-) Many of us work long hours and have families to look after - and don't have the time to get involved in all this stuff. But would still welcome being able to spend a few minutes of "down time" checking out what the council is planning to do, and to have a say on shaping the future of the borough - we all pay council tax after all.
Trust me Steve, to get the real power of the Localism Act you definitely do not want it run by the council.
[quote][p][bold]stevesuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevesuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]xena dion[/bold] wrote: i sincerely hope all you motorists put your comments formally to the Council. Its always residents who push for speed limits, the Council certainly doesn't do it just to annoy motorists. When i had the transportation portfolio I would have gone against it, but public opinion dictates, and the residents got the speed limits they wanted. If motorists don't wake up to the fact they need to respond to notices and consultation events from the Council, they will see the whole of Poole (especially around the port access roads) turn into 20mph zones. Apart from around schools, there really isn't a great need for further zones but then its up to motorists to drive responsibly - there's the rub....[/p][/quote]The problem is that local councillors often claim they have overwhelming support of local residents for these schemes, when in fact the majority of us are rarely even asked for our opinion. It seems that the way our democracy is set-up, a small minority of people with time on their hands demand these things, and make lots of noise about it, whilst the vast majority of us just sigh and think "what on earth?". Very often the first time most of us find out, is when we drive down a road and find the speed limit has been reduced - so unless we stumble across a story in the Echo, how are we supposed to know that our opinion is even being sought? My suggestion is that their could be a page on the Borough of Poole website listing schemes that are being considered by the council. Residents could login (after being validated as residents of course) and quickly give a thumbs up/thumbs down, and have a box where they could post comments - which would be fed back to the relevant department. A convenient way to give busy people the personal power to comment on issues that affect them directly - I expect most politicians would find that scary![/p][/quote]I have been working on a project called My Better Community, it is a forum designed exclusively for the people of Poole covering all 16 wards, where local people can share ideas and work together on various issues affecting Poole. It's there, it's free to use and can be tailored for individual group needs if requested. A lot of people do not realise they already have the power through the localism Act but that is only achievable if people organise themselves. It is still in project stage but if anyone wants to get involved feel free to register on www.mbc-services.co. uk and rest assured MBC is about people not politics.[/p][/quote]A good initiative Marty Caine, but I feel that for it to work it would have to be part of the Borough of Poole website, and promoted by BoP. Someone else mentioned about fraud. Why would it be any more open to fraud than arranging for people from outside the area to fill in petitions, or to launch a letter writing campaign to influence the council. I'm not talking about casting votes online, just having somewhere to post your agreement or disagreement with ideas. Going a bit off topic now, but my suggestion would be that when the council mail out the annual council tax bill letter, they could send each household an activation code, which would be used to sign up for the website. Since you would need to have received the letter to your home address via the postal mail, it would be taking steps to maintain some level of validation. As to what about people who don't use the internet? They still have neighbourhood meetings, councillors to talk to etc. Here in Broadstone it seems that if you don't attend neighbourhood meetings or get involved with the residents association, your view simply doesn't matter to anyone - and you have no way of voicing your disagreement - and I disagree with many, many things that are suggested in Broadstone... but that's another matter :-) Many of us work long hours and have families to look after - and don't have the time to get involved in all this stuff. But would still welcome being able to spend a few minutes of "down time" checking out what the council is planning to do, and to have a say on shaping the future of the borough - we all pay council tax after all.[/p][/quote]Trust me Steve, to get the real power of the Localism Act you definitely do not want it run by the council. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

11:53pm Tue 15 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Evmeister wrote:
I know it's going off on a slight tangent but if the real reason behind this campaign is safety the council should look at the parking around schools. I live near a school and the way that people park is ludicrous. In fact I would like to see how the same people would be treated should they park along Ashley Road. There is often a camera car and traffic wardens but no action is ever taken. If the council really want to make school roads safer they should start with the obstacles caused by incorrect parking. Are double yellow lines ignored elsewhere and do the council turn a blind eye to people parking on double yellow lines elsewhere. The answer is no and as usual double standards are being applied.
Well actually the real reason behind the 20mph limits throughout Britain is down to an EU directive nothing else.

http://en.30kmh.eu/w
hy-30kmh-20-mph/
[quote][p][bold]Evmeister[/bold] wrote: I know it's going off on a slight tangent but if the real reason behind this campaign is safety the council should look at the parking around schools. I live near a school and the way that people park is ludicrous. In fact I would like to see how the same people would be treated should they park along Ashley Road. There is often a camera car and traffic wardens but no action is ever taken. If the council really want to make school roads safer they should start with the obstacles caused by incorrect parking. Are double yellow lines ignored elsewhere and do the council turn a blind eye to people parking on double yellow lines elsewhere. The answer is no and as usual double standards are being applied.[/p][/quote]Well actually the real reason behind the 20mph limits throughout Britain is down to an EU directive nothing else. http://en.30kmh.eu/w hy-30kmh-20-mph/ Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -3

8:42am Wed 16 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

here is a summary of the anti- speed limit arguement : it's all about tax/ a conspiracy/ A European plot to end British sovereignty/ tree-huggers dictating to hard-working taxpayers/ irresponsible pedestrians and cyclists (who don't pay the mythical "road tax" don't you know) / a threat to the Uks economy / will actually result in mass carnage / a breach of the Magna Carta --blah,blab,blah ad infinitum (massive yawn), let's all discuss something more interesting and just accept we may take a couple of minutes more to get from A to B , so what? People are starving and dying , species becoming exctinct, wars raging- get a sense of perspective for pitys sake!
here is a summary of the anti- speed limit arguement : it's all about tax/ a conspiracy/ A European plot to end British sovereignty/ tree-huggers dictating to hard-working taxpayers/ irresponsible pedestrians and cyclists (who don't pay the mythical "road tax" don't you know) / a threat to the Uks economy / will actually result in mass carnage / a breach of the Magna Carta --blah,blab,blah ad infinitum (massive yawn), let's all discuss something more interesting and just accept we may take a couple of minutes more to get from A to B , so what? People are starving and dying , species becoming exctinct, wars raging- get a sense of perspective for pitys sake! uvox44
  • Score: 3

11:11am Wed 16 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
here is a summary of the anti- speed limit arguement : it's all about tax/ a conspiracy/ A European plot to end British sovereignty/ tree-huggers dictating to hard-working taxpayers/ irresponsible pedestrians and cyclists (who don't pay the mythical "road tax" don't you know) / a threat to the Uks economy / will actually result in mass carnage / a breach of the Magna Carta --blah,blab,blah ad infinitum (massive yawn), let's all discuss something more interesting and just accept we may take a couple of minutes more to get from A to B , so what? People are starving and dying , species becoming exctinct, wars raging- get a sense of perspective for pitys sake!
Well I hate to pop your bubble but this particular article is about 20mph speed limits, it is not about how you would like to change the world.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: here is a summary of the anti- speed limit arguement : it's all about tax/ a conspiracy/ A European plot to end British sovereignty/ tree-huggers dictating to hard-working taxpayers/ irresponsible pedestrians and cyclists (who don't pay the mythical "road tax" don't you know) / a threat to the Uks economy / will actually result in mass carnage / a breach of the Magna Carta --blah,blab,blah ad infinitum (massive yawn), let's all discuss something more interesting and just accept we may take a couple of minutes more to get from A to B , so what? People are starving and dying , species becoming exctinct, wars raging- get a sense of perspective for pitys sake![/p][/quote]Well I hate to pop your bubble but this particular article is about 20mph speed limits, it is not about how you would like to change the world. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 0

11:33am Wed 16 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that .
it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that . uvox44
  • Score: 1

11:39am Wed 16 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
here is a summary of the anti- speed limit arguement : it's all about tax/ a conspiracy/ A European plot to end British sovereignty/ tree-huggers dictating to hard-working taxpayers/ irresponsible pedestrians and cyclists (who don't pay the mythical "road tax" don't you know) / a threat to the Uks economy / will actually result in mass carnage / a breach of the Magna Carta --blah,blab,blah ad infinitum (massive yawn), let's all discuss something more interesting and just accept we may take a couple of minutes more to get from A to B , so what? People are starving and dying , species becoming exctinct, wars raging- get a sense of perspective for pitys sake!
So 20 limits used to be about "safety", then when it was realised they don't deliver safety they were all about "community", now that people are realising that doesn't work either, the only justification seems to be that since there are lots of big problems, it doesn't matter if we introduce a few small ones.

There are many more downsides to limits too low than "taking a couple of minutes more to get from A to B"

There are policies, guidelines and solid principles for setting limits properly and it is about time those with the correct qualifications and with all the solutions available to them to choose from were using them properly to do so.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: here is a summary of the anti- speed limit arguement : it's all about tax/ a conspiracy/ A European plot to end British sovereignty/ tree-huggers dictating to hard-working taxpayers/ irresponsible pedestrians and cyclists (who don't pay the mythical "road tax" don't you know) / a threat to the Uks economy / will actually result in mass carnage / a breach of the Magna Carta --blah,blab,blah ad infinitum (massive yawn), let's all discuss something more interesting and just accept we may take a couple of minutes more to get from A to B , so what? People are starving and dying , species becoming exctinct, wars raging- get a sense of perspective for pitys sake![/p][/quote]So 20 limits used to be about "safety", then when it was realised they don't deliver safety they were all about "community", now that people are realising that doesn't work either, the only justification seems to be that since there are lots of big problems, it doesn't matter if we introduce a few small ones. There are many more downsides to limits too low than "taking a couple of minutes more to get from A to B" There are policies, guidelines and solid principles for setting limits properly and it is about time those with the correct qualifications and with all the solutions available to them to choose from were using them properly to do so. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

11:45am Wed 16 Jul 14

stevesuk says...

uvox44 wrote:
it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that .
You could also look at it from the other point of view though. Why are the council and local residents getting so worked up about spending our council tax money on signage etc. just to knock a few MPH off existing speed limits? Even locally, there must be bigger problems to solve? I've yet to read any articles about lower speed limits making a significant difference to anything (apart from those written by people with a clear agenda)
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that .[/p][/quote]You could also look at it from the other point of view though. Why are the council and local residents getting so worked up about spending our council tax money on signage etc. just to knock a few MPH off existing speed limits? Even locally, there must be bigger problems to solve? I've yet to read any articles about lower speed limits making a significant difference to anything (apart from those written by people with a clear agenda) stevesuk
  • Score: -2

11:59am Wed 16 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

uvox44 wrote:
it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that .
If they impose 20 mph speed limits throughout the UK which is what the EU seem to want to do it will cause greater chaos on the roads, which will undoubtedly lead to far more accidents. Every sensible driver knows that 30 mph is a safe and reasonable speed to travel and yet here you are saying that a reduction of 10 mph is irelevent? Most of the time it is extremely difficult to get over 20 mph anyway with the amount of traffic which is forced onto main roads due to traffic calming measures on the sides streets of Poole and you seem to be totally oblivious of that fact. I honestly do find that truly amazing and I also find your insinuation that we should just roll over and except this because there is a war going on somewhere in the world as seriously stupid, it's like saying we should not bother researching cures for cancer because other people are dying of starvation anyway. No wonder you post anonymously.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that .[/p][/quote]If they impose 20 mph speed limits throughout the UK which is what the EU seem to want to do it will cause greater chaos on the roads, which will undoubtedly lead to far more accidents. Every sensible driver knows that 30 mph is a safe and reasonable speed to travel and yet here you are saying that a reduction of 10 mph is irelevent? Most of the time it is extremely difficult to get over 20 mph anyway with the amount of traffic which is forced onto main roads due to traffic calming measures on the sides streets of Poole and you seem to be totally oblivious of that fact. I honestly do find that truly amazing and I also find your insinuation that we should just roll over and except this because there is a war going on somewhere in the world as seriously stupid, it's like saying we should not bother researching cures for cancer because other people are dying of starvation anyway. No wonder you post anonymously. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -2

1:50pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

stevesuk wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that .
You could also look at it from the other point of view though. Why are the council and local residents getting so worked up about spending our council tax money on signage etc. just to knock a few MPH off existing speed limits? Even locally, there must be bigger problems to solve? I've yet to read any articles about lower speed limits making a significant difference to anything (apart from those written by people with a clear agenda)
It's all about perspective Steve, to the lobsters in the kitchen of the Titanic that iceberg was actually a miracle ;)
[quote][p][bold]stevesuk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: it's ok marty my bubble is intact, i did realise what the article was about and my comment was about the article ie that a 10mph reduction in speed isn't worth getting so worked up about given the bigger concerns in life-it's called putting things in context/perspective- a very valuable ability to have i find- and I mean that .[/p][/quote]You could also look at it from the other point of view though. Why are the council and local residents getting so worked up about spending our council tax money on signage etc. just to knock a few MPH off existing speed limits? Even locally, there must be bigger problems to solve? I've yet to read any articles about lower speed limits making a significant difference to anything (apart from those written by people with a clear agenda)[/p][/quote]It's all about perspective Steve, to the lobsters in the kitchen of the Titanic that iceberg was actually a miracle ;) Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: -1

2:32pm Wed 16 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

well i have a limited amount of spare time to change a limited number of things - so on the scale i mentioned there are MANY more issues i can consider MUCH more important than a few extra minutes on my journey - if i genuinely believed that it was an EU conspiracy then maybe it would be one of those issues , but doubtful even then. If drivers could stick to the existing limits and stop crashing into each other then the justification to lower the limits wouldn't be there anyway so i guess the irresponsible minority have brought this uponthemselves (and safe drivers too) - oh well.
As for posting anonymously not quite sure what difference that makes, if we ever met I'll tell you exactly the same thing to your face , one of the joys of free speech!
well i have a limited amount of spare time to change a limited number of things - so on the scale i mentioned there are MANY more issues i can consider MUCH more important than a few extra minutes on my journey - if i genuinely believed that it was an EU conspiracy then maybe it would be one of those issues , but doubtful even then. If drivers could stick to the existing limits and stop crashing into each other then the justification to lower the limits wouldn't be there anyway so i guess the irresponsible minority have brought this uponthemselves (and safe drivers too) - oh well. As for posting anonymously not quite sure what difference that makes, if we ever met I'll tell you exactly the same thing to your face , one of the joys of free speech! uvox44
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Wed 16 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

"If drivers could stick to the existing limits and stop crashing into each other then the justification to lower the limits wouldn't be there anyway"

That fact that drivers cannot stick to existing limits is not a very good justification to lower limits!

That's like noticing that a medicine is not working, and deciding that the solution is to increase the dosage.
"If drivers could stick to the existing limits and stop crashing into each other then the justification to lower the limits wouldn't be there anyway" That fact that drivers cannot stick to existing limits is not a very good justification to lower limits! That's like noticing that a medicine is not working, and deciding that the solution is to increase the dosage. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

2:54pm Wed 16 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

that would be true if drivers didn't tend to go above the speed limit by about 10mph (excepting some truly suicidal/homocidal idiots) eg most people seem to go near 40 in a 30 , so it's not a great leap to work out that if the limit is lowered to 20 then they'll end up doing what they should in the first place. But i wait to hear how the fact that most drivers can't stick to existing limits is justification for RAISING them?! Anyway , as I have said already, the technology already exists to end speeding overnight, strangely you seem reluctant to back it ( car sales notwithstanding)
that would be true if drivers didn't tend to go above the speed limit by about 10mph (excepting some truly suicidal/homocidal idiots) eg most people seem to go near 40 in a 30 , so it's not a great leap to work out that if the limit is lowered to 20 then they'll end up doing what they should in the first place. But i wait to hear how the fact that most drivers can't stick to existing limits is justification for RAISING them?! Anyway , as I have said already, the technology already exists to end speeding overnight, strangely you seem reluctant to back it ( car sales notwithstanding) uvox44
  • Score: 1

3:06pm Wed 16 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

I don't want the limits we had raised. Instead of the obsession with speed, I want a balanced and intelligent approach to road safety. The people who typically go 10 over are not the ones who crash. it's the suicidal / homicidal ones who crash. and they couldn't give a toss about any limits.

I think we should fix the obvious problems we have first, bad driving and road safety authorities obsessed with money making instead of road safety, and see how that goes, before we make any more mistakes.
I don't want the limits we had raised. Instead of the obsession with speed, I want a balanced and intelligent approach to road safety. The people who typically go 10 over are not the ones who crash. it's the suicidal / homicidal ones who crash. and they couldn't give a toss about any limits. I think we should fix the obvious problems we have first, bad driving and road safety authorities obsessed with money making instead of road safety, and see how that goes, before we make any more mistakes. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Wed 16 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

yes obviously speeding is only part of the overall problem, and i'm sure you'd agree on that could be totally removed by fitting speed regulators (as are already fitted to some commercial vehicles, albeit not GPS controlled) - then with that problem out the way more resources to be used to combat the other problems- and no unfair fines- so why won't you back such technology?
yes obviously speeding is only part of the overall problem, and i'm sure you'd agree on that could be totally removed by fitting speed regulators (as are already fitted to some commercial vehicles, albeit not GPS controlled) - then with that problem out the way more resources to be used to combat the other problems- and no unfair fines- so why won't you back such technology? uvox44
  • Score: 1

3:27pm Wed 16 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
yes obviously speeding is only part of the overall problem, and i'm sure you'd agree on that could be totally removed by fitting speed regulators (as are already fitted to some commercial vehicles, albeit not GPS controlled) - then with that problem out the way more resources to be used to combat the other problems- and no unfair fines- so why won't you back such technology?
- many speed limits are too low
- there would be a massive cost
- there would be unintentional negative effects
- it would probably only be fitted to new cars (I think we discussed this) and therefore take a long time to reach the drivers it might benefit the most (young in old cars)
- it would consume resources and divert attention from other potentially more effective solutions,

etc. etc.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: yes obviously speeding is only part of the overall problem, and i'm sure you'd agree on that could be totally removed by fitting speed regulators (as are already fitted to some commercial vehicles, albeit not GPS controlled) - then with that problem out the way more resources to be used to combat the other problems- and no unfair fines- so why won't you back such technology?[/p][/quote]- many speed limits are too low - there would be a massive cost - there would be unintentional negative effects - it would probably only be fitted to new cars (I think we discussed this) and therefore take a long time to reach the drivers it might benefit the most (young in old cars) - it would consume resources and divert attention from other potentially more effective solutions, etc. etc. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

3:41pm Wed 16 Jul 14

uvox44 says...

many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency)
massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS
what unintentional negative effects?
It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now!
the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones.
Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude
many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency) massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS what unintentional negative effects? It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now! the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones. Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude uvox44
  • Score: 2

4:15pm Wed 16 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency)
massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS
what unintentional negative effects?
It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now!
the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones.
Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude
It's simple - speed is simply not the issue that the speed industry is making it out to be to make money.

If as soon as you had a limiter device, you could drive at the limit as it was 10 years ago (and 80 on motorways) I would have little objection - as long as a balanced and independent study showed that this was the most cost effective thing to do to reduce casualty - the problem is, I very much doubt that it would. I am not asking for any solution in particular, I am asking for a professional process to determine what the best solutions are. "Someone got hurt so the limit has to go down" does not look like the best but that seems to be all we have.

I have already mentioned negative effects such as conflict between limited and unlimited vehicles and running out of power overtaking, there are likely to be many others. Another might be driver fatigue, with drivers just sitting with the throttle on the floor falling asleep due to boredom. It's simply the well known law of unintended consequences.

About 10 times the number of people die as a result of poor care in hospital than die on the roads - And about a tenth of those have anything to do with speeding.

The number of lives that could be saved by ISA is probably comparable to the number that could be saved if you just just sent all the speed industry jobsworths into hospitals with mops and bottles of water. Deaths due to "speeding" might eventually become close to zero with ISA - but I bet that deaths due to "excessive speed for the conditions" would increase substantially. It's just as simplistic as idiot proofing
a small section of road and patting yourself on the back for reducing accidents there when drivers just have those accidents somewhere else instead.

I support speed limits but they have to be reasonable - and the 85%ile is an excellent indication of a reasonable limit - not a totally absurd 20% below even average measured speeds as we have on Dorset's highest enforcement revenue earning roads, surprise surprise.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency) massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS what unintentional negative effects? It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now! the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones. Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude[/p][/quote]It's simple - speed is simply not the issue that the speed industry is making it out to be to make money. If as soon as you had a limiter device, you could drive at the limit as it was 10 years ago (and 80 on motorways) I would have little objection - as long as a balanced and independent study showed that this was the most cost effective thing to do to reduce casualty - the problem is, I very much doubt that it would. I am not asking for any solution in particular, I am asking for a professional process to determine what the best solutions are. "Someone got hurt so the limit has to go down" does not look like the best but that seems to be all we have. I have already mentioned negative effects such as conflict between limited and unlimited vehicles and running out of power overtaking, there are likely to be many others. Another might be driver fatigue, with drivers just sitting with the throttle on the floor falling asleep due to boredom. It's simply the well known law of unintended consequences. About 10 times the number of people die as a result of poor care in hospital than die on the roads - And about a tenth of those have anything to do with speeding. The number of lives that could be saved by ISA is probably comparable to the number that could be saved if you just just sent all the speed industry jobsworths into hospitals with mops and bottles of water. Deaths due to "speeding" might eventually become close to zero with ISA - but I bet that deaths due to "excessive speed for the conditions" would increase substantially. It's just as simplistic as idiot proofing a small section of road and patting yourself on the back for reducing accidents there when drivers just have those accidents somewhere else instead. I support speed limits but they have to be reasonable - and the 85%ile is an excellent indication of a reasonable limit - not a totally absurd 20% below even average measured speeds as we have on Dorset's highest enforcement revenue earning roads, surprise surprise. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -2

6:19pm Wed 16 Jul 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote: many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency) massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS what unintentional negative effects? It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now! the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones. Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude
It's simple - speed is simply not the issue that the speed industry is making it out to be to make money. If as soon as you had a limiter device, you could drive at the limit as it was 10 years ago (and 80 on motorways) I would have little objection - as long as a balanced and independent study showed that this was the most cost effective thing to do to reduce casualty - the problem is, I very much doubt that it would. I am not asking for any solution in particular, I am asking for a professional process to determine what the best solutions are. "Someone got hurt so the limit has to go down" does not look like the best but that seems to be all we have. I have already mentioned negative effects such as conflict between limited and unlimited vehicles and running out of power overtaking, there are likely to be many others. Another might be driver fatigue, with drivers just sitting with the throttle on the floor falling asleep due to boredom. It's simply the well known law of unintended consequences. About 10 times the number of people die as a result of poor care in hospital than die on the roads - And about a tenth of those have anything to do with speeding. The number of lives that could be saved by ISA is probably comparable to the number that could be saved if you just just sent all the speed industry jobsworths into hospitals with mops and bottles of water. Deaths due to "speeding" might eventually become close to zero with ISA - but I bet that deaths due to "excessive speed for the conditions" would increase substantially. It's just as simplistic as idiot proofing a small section of road and patting yourself on the back for reducing accidents there when drivers just have those accidents somewhere else instead. I support speed limits but they have to be reasonable - and the 85%ile is an excellent indication of a reasonable limit - not a totally absurd 20% below even average measured speeds as we have on Dorset's highest enforcement revenue earning roads, surprise surprise.
The 10 times as many people die from poor care in hospital figure is, like the rest of your argument, rubbish. Most of those people were extremely old or ill people, whose life expectancy was very short anyway.

Those killed on the road are a cross-section of society, although the poor and young suffer disproportionately.

You cannot compare the two in a sensible argument. So I suppose you can freely compare them.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency) massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS what unintentional negative effects? It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now! the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones. Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude[/p][/quote]It's simple - speed is simply not the issue that the speed industry is making it out to be to make money. If as soon as you had a limiter device, you could drive at the limit as it was 10 years ago (and 80 on motorways) I would have little objection - as long as a balanced and independent study showed that this was the most cost effective thing to do to reduce casualty - the problem is, I very much doubt that it would. I am not asking for any solution in particular, I am asking for a professional process to determine what the best solutions are. "Someone got hurt so the limit has to go down" does not look like the best but that seems to be all we have. I have already mentioned negative effects such as conflict between limited and unlimited vehicles and running out of power overtaking, there are likely to be many others. Another might be driver fatigue, with drivers just sitting with the throttle on the floor falling asleep due to boredom. It's simply the well known law of unintended consequences. About 10 times the number of people die as a result of poor care in hospital than die on the roads - And about a tenth of those have anything to do with speeding. The number of lives that could be saved by ISA is probably comparable to the number that could be saved if you just just sent all the speed industry jobsworths into hospitals with mops and bottles of water. Deaths due to "speeding" might eventually become close to zero with ISA - but I bet that deaths due to "excessive speed for the conditions" would increase substantially. It's just as simplistic as idiot proofing a small section of road and patting yourself on the back for reducing accidents there when drivers just have those accidents somewhere else instead. I support speed limits but they have to be reasonable - and the 85%ile is an excellent indication of a reasonable limit - not a totally absurd 20% below even average measured speeds as we have on Dorset's highest enforcement revenue earning roads, surprise surprise.[/p][/quote]The 10 times as many people die from poor care in hospital figure is, like the rest of your argument, rubbish. Most of those people were extremely old or ill people, whose life expectancy was very short anyway. Those killed on the road are a cross-section of society, although the poor and young suffer disproportionately. You cannot compare the two in a sensible argument. So I suppose you can freely compare them. FNS-man
  • Score: 1

6:46pm Wed 16 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

Ok, so it's alright to kill people by starving them, not giving them water, giving then the wrong treatment etc. as long as they are old. Is that the only point you can comment on?
Ok, so it's alright to kill people by starving them, not giving them water, giving then the wrong treatment etc. as long as they are old. Is that the only point you can comment on? dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

9:09am Thu 17 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote: many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency) massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS what unintentional negative effects? It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now! the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones. Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude
It's simple - speed is simply not the issue that the speed industry is making it out to be to make money. If as soon as you had a limiter device, you could drive at the limit as it was 10 years ago (and 80 on motorways) I would have little objection - as long as a balanced and independent study showed that this was the most cost effective thing to do to reduce casualty - the problem is, I very much doubt that it would. I am not asking for any solution in particular, I am asking for a professional process to determine what the best solutions are. "Someone got hurt so the limit has to go down" does not look like the best but that seems to be all we have. I have already mentioned negative effects such as conflict between limited and unlimited vehicles and running out of power overtaking, there are likely to be many others. Another might be driver fatigue, with drivers just sitting with the throttle on the floor falling asleep due to boredom. It's simply the well known law of unintended consequences. About 10 times the number of people die as a result of poor care in hospital than die on the roads - And about a tenth of those have anything to do with speeding. The number of lives that could be saved by ISA is probably comparable to the number that could be saved if you just just sent all the speed industry jobsworths into hospitals with mops and bottles of water. Deaths due to "speeding" might eventually become close to zero with ISA - but I bet that deaths due to "excessive speed for the conditions" would increase substantially. It's just as simplistic as idiot proofing a small section of road and patting yourself on the back for reducing accidents there when drivers just have those accidents somewhere else instead. I support speed limits but they have to be reasonable - and the 85%ile is an excellent indication of a reasonable limit - not a totally absurd 20% below even average measured speeds as we have on Dorset's highest enforcement revenue earning roads, surprise surprise.
I like the way dorsetspleen only plucks figures from the air that support his argument and tries to give the impression he knows what he is talking about.

The "85th%ile rule" was rejected by the government as a means for deciding speed limits close to a decade ago so it's a dead argument. Get over it. He only mentions this ad nauseam because it allows him to argue that speed limits are too low in HIS opinion.

The mortality rate from the side effects of obesity etc due to inactivity is also much higher than those killed on the roads. That's why it's important for people to be more active, and research shows slower speeds will encourage more physical activity on residential roads.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: many speed limits are too low- ok once the technology was introduced they could be raised ( see my previous point about the + 10mph tendency) massive cost- not really , some cost that would be added to the cost of cars, certainly less than the benefits of reduced deaths and injuries to the NHS what unintentional negative effects? It could be retro-fitted to most cars with modernish engine management systems - the sooner it's started the faster the benefits will be felt- even more reason to press for it now! the resources would come from the motor industry and as i have already said far from diverting attention it would vastly reduce one main problem and actually free up resources to tackle the other ones. Your stated backing of spped limits yet your excuses to avoid speeding impossible make me feel you have a different agenda to the one you state, as others have also be lead to conclude[/p][/quote]It's simple - speed is simply not the issue that the speed industry is making it out to be to make money. If as soon as you had a limiter device, you could drive at the limit as it was 10 years ago (and 80 on motorways) I would have little objection - as long as a balanced and independent study showed that this was the most cost effective thing to do to reduce casualty - the problem is, I very much doubt that it would. I am not asking for any solution in particular, I am asking for a professional process to determine what the best solutions are. "Someone got hurt so the limit has to go down" does not look like the best but that seems to be all we have. I have already mentioned negative effects such as conflict between limited and unlimited vehicles and running out of power overtaking, there are likely to be many others. Another might be driver fatigue, with drivers just sitting with the throttle on the floor falling asleep due to boredom. It's simply the well known law of unintended consequences. About 10 times the number of people die as a result of poor care in hospital than die on the roads - And about a tenth of those have anything to do with speeding. The number of lives that could be saved by ISA is probably comparable to the number that could be saved if you just just sent all the speed industry jobsworths into hospitals with mops and bottles of water. Deaths due to "speeding" might eventually become close to zero with ISA - but I bet that deaths due to "excessive speed for the conditions" would increase substantially. It's just as simplistic as idiot proofing a small section of road and patting yourself on the back for reducing accidents there when drivers just have those accidents somewhere else instead. I support speed limits but they have to be reasonable - and the 85%ile is an excellent indication of a reasonable limit - not a totally absurd 20% below even average measured speeds as we have on Dorset's highest enforcement revenue earning roads, surprise surprise.[/p][/quote]I like the way dorsetspleen only plucks figures from the air that support his argument and tries to give the impression he knows what he is talking about. The "85th%ile rule" was rejected by the government as a means for deciding speed limits close to a decade ago so it's a dead argument. Get over it. He only mentions this ad nauseam because it allows him to argue that speed limits are too low in HIS opinion. The mortality rate from the side effects of obesity etc due to inactivity is also much higher than those killed on the roads. That's why it's important for people to be more active, and research shows slower speeds will encourage more physical activity on residential roads. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

9:29am Thu 17 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

The government rejected it? Where? Obviously the government are right. Where does it say in government limit guidance that limits should be set 20% below average speeds as we have on our highest enforcement income roads?

Actually, the government have nothing to do with it. If you ask them they will say it's up to the local authorities, and if you question the LAs, if you get any answer at all it will be that they are following government guidance. No one has a clue and everyone passes the buck.

"research shows slower speeds will encourage more physical activity on residential roads." Where? Are you seriously suggesting that someone obese will suddenly start cycling around everywhere just because there are a few number 20s around?
The government rejected it? Where? Obviously the government are right. Where does it say in government limit guidance that limits should be set 20% below average speeds as we have on our highest enforcement income roads? Actually, the government have nothing to do with it. If you ask them they will say it's up to the local authorities, and if you question the LAs, if you get any answer at all it will be that they are following government guidance. No one has a clue and everyone passes the buck. "research shows slower speeds will encourage more physical activity on residential roads." Where? Are you seriously suggesting that someone obese will suddenly start cycling around everywhere just because there are a few number 20s around? dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

10:02am Thu 17 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The government rejected it? Where? Obviously the government are right. Where does it say in government limit guidance that limits should be set 20% below average speeds as we have on our highest enforcement income roads? Actually, the government have nothing to do with it. If you ask them they will say it's up to the local authorities, and if you question the LAs, if you get any answer at all it will be that they are following government guidance. No one has a clue and everyone passes the buck. "research shows slower speeds will encourage more physical activity on residential roads." Where? Are you seriously suggesting that someone obese will suddenly start cycling around everywhere just because there are a few number 20s around?
How about DfT Speed Limit Guidance 2006:

“Mean speeds and 85th percentile speeds (the speed at or below which 85% of the traffic is travelling) are the most commonly recorded characteristics of speed. Traffic authorities should continue to routinely collect and assess both, but mean speeds should be used as the basis for determining local speed limits. This is a change from the use of 85th percentile speed in Circular Roads 01/93 (DoT, 1993). As explained in paragraph17, the use of mean speeds is underpinned by EXTENSIVE RESEARCH demonstrating the well proven relationship between speed and accident frequency and severity. They also reflect what the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed to be driven for the road, and are felt to be easier for road users themselves to understand”.

With regards increased physical activity there is also a lot of research out there.....here is an example of something quite recent: US children aged 12-15 are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe for pedestrians, finds the University of California:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/
content/early/2014/0
3/21/bjsports-2013-0
93101.short
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: The government rejected it? Where? Obviously the government are right. Where does it say in government limit guidance that limits should be set 20% below average speeds as we have on our highest enforcement income roads? Actually, the government have nothing to do with it. If you ask them they will say it's up to the local authorities, and if you question the LAs, if you get any answer at all it will be that they are following government guidance. No one has a clue and everyone passes the buck. "research shows slower speeds will encourage more physical activity on residential roads." Where? Are you seriously suggesting that someone obese will suddenly start cycling around everywhere just because there are a few number 20s around?[/p][/quote]How about DfT Speed Limit Guidance 2006: “Mean speeds and 85th percentile speeds (the speed at or below which 85% of the traffic is travelling) are the most commonly recorded characteristics of speed. Traffic authorities should continue to routinely collect and assess both, but mean speeds should be used as the basis for determining local speed limits. This is a change from the use of 85th percentile speed in Circular Roads 01/93 (DoT, 1993). As explained in paragraph17, the use of mean speeds is underpinned by EXTENSIVE RESEARCH demonstrating the well proven relationship between speed and accident frequency and severity. They also reflect what the majority of drivers perceive as an appropriate speed to be driven for the road, and are felt to be easier for road users themselves to understand”. With regards increased physical activity there is also a lot of research out there.....here is an example of something quite recent: US children aged 12-15 are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe for pedestrians, finds the University of California: http://bjsm.bmj.com/ content/early/2014/0 3/21/bjsports-2013-0 93101.short tbpoole
  • Score: 1

10:13am Thu 17 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

As I said anything from the government is bound to be right, such as "As
a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision
frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000)"

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/2733/s
etting-local-speed-l
imits.pdf

This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous.


"... are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe "

I don't doubt it at all. But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle.
As I said anything from the government is bound to be right, such as "As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000)" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/2733/s etting-local-speed-l imits.pdf This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous. "... are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe " I don't doubt it at all. But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

10:22am Thu 17 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
As I said anything from the government is bound to be right, such as "As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000)" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/2733/s etting-local-speed-l imits.pdf This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous. "... are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe " I don't doubt it at all. But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle.
As I said anything from the ABD brigade is bound to be right.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: As I said anything from the government is bound to be right, such as "As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000)" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/2733/s etting-local-speed-l imits.pdf This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous. "... are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe " I don't doubt it at all. But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle.[/p][/quote]As I said anything from the ABD brigade is bound to be right. tbpoole
  • Score: 1

10:30am Thu 17 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

What's that got to do with anything?
What's that got to do with anything? dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

12:54pm Thu 17 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
What's that got to do with anything?
You aked where the government rejected using 85th%iles. I gave you the quote.

You asked for research showing safer roads means more physical activity. I gave you the link.

If you choose to dismiss everything officially produced as a conspiracy, but decide to take everything on ABD websites and the like as gospel, that's your problem but don't try and make out that every one thinks the same way and certainly don't include me in that list.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: What's that got to do with anything?[/p][/quote]You aked where the government rejected using 85th%iles. I gave you the quote. You asked for research showing safer roads means more physical activity. I gave you the link. If you choose to dismiss everything officially produced as a conspiracy, but decide to take everything on ABD websites and the like as gospel, that's your problem but don't try and make out that every one thinks the same way and certainly don't include me in that list. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

2:18pm Thu 17 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Just because the government have decided on something does not automatically mean it's right. I explained, safer roads might lead to more walking / cycling but a number 20 in a circle does not automatically mean safer roads.

I haven't mentioned ABD once, I don't know what you're going on about. You seem to be descending into pointless repetitive arguing for the sake of it once again.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Just because the government have decided on something does not automatically mean it's right. I explained, safer roads might lead to more walking / cycling but a number 20 in a circle does not automatically mean safer roads. I haven't mentioned ABD once, I don't know what you're going on about. You seem to be descending into pointless repetitive arguing for the sake of it once again. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

3:01pm Thu 17 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Just because the government have decided on something does not automatically mean it's right. I explained, safer roads might lead to more walking / cycling but a number 20 in a circle does not automatically mean safer roads. I haven't mentioned ABD once, I don't know what you're going on about. You seem to be descending into pointless repetitive arguing for the sake of it once again.
But if the DfT have got the top industry experts researching into things, they will obviously base their guidance on this independent research. Not the feeble ramblings of the anti-camera, speed doesn't kill brigade. The ABD website is representative of this ilk, but there are many other sites which spout the same nonsense, including your own.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. Just because the government have decided on something does not automatically mean it's right. I explained, safer roads might lead to more walking / cycling but a number 20 in a circle does not automatically mean safer roads. I haven't mentioned ABD once, I don't know what you're going on about. You seem to be descending into pointless repetitive arguing for the sake of it once again.[/p][/quote]But if the DfT have got the top industry experts researching into things, they will obviously base their guidance on this independent research. Not the feeble ramblings of the anti-camera, speed doesn't kill brigade. The ABD website is representative of this ilk, but there are many other sites which spout the same nonsense, including your own. tbpoole
  • Score: 2

3:18pm Thu 17 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

"This book will make you gasp in disbelief and stamp your feet in rage, and quite frequently reduce you to helpless laughter. It will also make you tremble in terror at the realisation that the people in charge of our destinies are, in many respects, idiots"

http://www.theguardi
an.com/books/2013/se
p/04/blunders-govern
ment-king-crewe-revi
ew

I repeat once more, if you disagree with anything on my site, or can see any factual errors, please could you detail them.
"This book will make you gasp in disbelief and stamp your feet in rage, and quite frequently reduce you to helpless laughter. It will also make you tremble in terror at the realisation that the people in charge of our destinies are, in many respects, idiots" http://www.theguardi an.com/books/2013/se p/04/blunders-govern ment-king-crewe-revi ew I repeat once more, if you disagree with anything on my site, or can see any factual errors, please could you detail them. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

5:39pm Thu 17 Jul 14

FNS-man says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
As I said anything from the government is bound to be right, such as "As
a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision
frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000)"

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/2733/s

etting-local-speed-l

imits.pdf

This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous.


"... are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe "

I don't doubt it at all. But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle.
"This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous."

I don't think you understand compound interest. Maybe have a look here:

http://www.basic-mat
hematics.com/simple-
vs-compound-interest
.html

"But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle."

Yes, traffic calming measures should also be introduced.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: As I said anything from the government is bound to be right, such as "As a general rule for every 1 mph reduction in average speed, collision frequency reduces by around 5% (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya, 2000)" https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/2733/s etting-local-speed-l imits.pdf This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous. "... are twice as likely to walk to school if the area around their home is seen as safe " I don't doubt it at all. But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle.[/p][/quote]"This should mean that with reductions of 20, there should be no collisions at all. Ridiculous." I don't think you understand compound interest. Maybe have a look here: http://www.basic-mat hematics.com/simple- vs-compound-interest .html "But you need to do more to make something seem safe, and a lot more to actually make it safer, than putting a number 20 in a circle." Yes, traffic calming measures should also be introduced. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Dorset Logic says...

Ragwin wrote:
If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.
we have no rights, did you forget that bit.
[quote][p][bold]Ragwin[/bold] wrote: If residents who live a street want a 20 mph speed limit then they should have it. Motorists who don't live in that street have no right to tell them what the speed limit should be. The street is there to be used by everyone, not just selfish motorists who want to use it as a rat run. I would love to see more traffic calming bollards and bumps down my road. They keep the motorists happy and calm.[/p][/quote]we have no rights, did you forget that bit. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Thu 17 Jul 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
"This book will make you gasp in disbelief and stamp your feet in rage, and quite frequently reduce you to helpless laughter. It will also make you tremble in terror at the realisation that the people in charge of our destinies are, in many respects, idiots"

http://www.theguardi

an.com/books/2013/se

p/04/blunders-govern

ment-king-crewe-revi

ew

I repeat once more, if you disagree with anything on my site, or can see any factual errors, please could you detail them.
It would take weeks to list everything on your site that is factually incorrect and this is not the forum to do that.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "This book will make you gasp in disbelief and stamp your feet in rage, and quite frequently reduce you to helpless laughter. It will also make you tremble in terror at the realisation that the people in charge of our destinies are, in many respects, idiots" http://www.theguardi an.com/books/2013/se p/04/blunders-govern ment-king-crewe-revi ew I repeat once more, if you disagree with anything on my site, or can see any factual errors, please could you detail them.[/p][/quote]It would take weeks to list everything on your site that is factually incorrect and this is not the forum to do that. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

6:48am Fri 18 Jul 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
"This book will make you gasp in disbelief and stamp your feet in rage, and quite frequently reduce you to helpless laughter. It will also make you tremble in terror at the realisation that the people in charge of our destinies are, in many respects, idiots"

http://www.theguardi


an.com/books/2013/se


p/04/blunders-govern


ment-king-crewe-revi


ew

I repeat once more, if you disagree with anything on my site, or can see any factual errors, please could you detail them.
It would take weeks to list everything on your site that is factually incorrect and this is not the forum to do that.
Ok, just one example then?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "This book will make you gasp in disbelief and stamp your feet in rage, and quite frequently reduce you to helpless laughter. It will also make you tremble in terror at the realisation that the people in charge of our destinies are, in many respects, idiots" http://www.theguardi an.com/books/2013/se p/04/blunders-govern ment-king-crewe-revi ew I repeat once more, if you disagree with anything on my site, or can see any factual errors, please could you detail them.[/p][/quote]It would take weeks to list everything on your site that is factually incorrect and this is not the forum to do that.[/p][/quote]Ok, just one example then? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

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