Still no excuses: police warn drivers they’re cracking down on speeding

Sgt Stuart Pitman of Dorset Police talking to a motorist who had been caught driving at 86mph on Dorset Way

Sgt Stuart Pitman of Dorset Police talking to a motorist who had been caught driving at 86mph on Dorset Way

First published in News by

“YOUR vehicle is a lethal weapon.”

That’s the message from a top traffic cop targeting motorists who flout the law.

Sergeant Stuart Pitman, lead officer for Dorset Police’s No Excuses driving campaign, said communities around the county are “suffering” as the result of bad driving.

And in a night of action on Tuesday, more than 200 vehicles – including motorcycles, cars and even a tractor – were stopped by officers.

Of those, 194 were found to be speeding.

The first vehicle to be stopped by Sgt Pitman was a silver BMW caught travelling at 86 miles per hour on the Upton Bypass.

The officer warned its driver of the treacherous conditions on the road after days of heavy rain and issued a fixed penalty notice for £100.

The driver’s licence will also be endorsed with three points.

He would have been able to take a driving awareness course, but had already completed one just six months ago.

Speaking afterwards, Sgt Pitman said: “This is someone who isn’t learning his lesson.

“He was travelling at speed, and that can kill.”

The second car stopped – a Citroen Dispatch – was travelling at 91 miles per hour on a dual carriageway.

Its driver told police: “I’m late for the dog track – I’m supposed to be there by 6pm.”

Yet another told police that he needed the toilet, while one man caught travelling at 71mph in a 50 zone told the officer: “My wife is going to kill me.”

One man was caught by an unmarked police car flashing his lights at oncoming motorists to warn them of police activity.

When stopped, officers discovered he had no tax or insurance and his vehicle was seized.

Drivers speeding on the county’s main roads were pulled over by officers during the safety initiative.

Operations manager Brian Austin said the evening’s particular focus was on motorcyclists speeding to Poole Bike Night at the Quay, but all motorists could be stopped.

“We have received increased complaints about speeding motorcyclists on their way there,” he said.

He said a previous initiative had resulted in five bikers being pulled over on the A31.

All had been travelling at 115 miles per hour.

“Bikes are going past houses at speed, and we must react to that,” he said.

Sgt Pitman said the initiative was about “deploying resources to communities who are suffering as the result of anti-social driving”.

“There are a small number of individuals who continue to flout traffic laws,” he added.

Comments (106)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:11am Thu 28 Aug 14

jquain says...

Yawn!

Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.
Yawn! Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc. jquain
  • Score: 42

7:19am Thu 28 Aug 14

boyerboy says...

Can we have a breakdown of where the fines go please?

Of course, i am not concerned that the monies just seem to disappear...........
..
Can we have a breakdown of where the fines go please? Of course, i am not concerned that the monies just seem to disappear........... .. boyerboy
  • Score: 10

7:51am Thu 28 Aug 14

Controversial But True says...

Dorset Police could utilise on those useless nonsense PCSOs and let them stand at the roadside holding a hairdryer!
Dorset Police could utilise on those useless nonsense PCSOs and let them stand at the roadside holding a hairdryer! Controversial But True
  • Score: 1

7:55am Thu 28 Aug 14

folkprotector says...

Controversial But True wrote:
Dorset Police could utilise on those useless nonsense PCSOs and let them stand at the roadside holding a hairdryer!
Uh?
[quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: Dorset Police could utilise on those useless nonsense PCSOs and let them stand at the roadside holding a hairdryer![/p][/quote]Uh? folkprotector
  • Score: 4

7:55am Thu 28 Aug 14

user_name says...

jquain wrote:
Yawn!

Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.
Speeding is poor driving. These stories always annoy everyone. You get the usual comments of ' why can't they catch real criminals?' , ' when someone broke into my garage it took them hours to get here'. I would imagine some think pulling over someone for flashing drivers to warn that the police are about is not fair, however this resulted in another uninsured driver off the road. They are just doing their job and that is to keep the roads as safe as possible. I realise that some people think that they drive at excessive speed really well, so should be immune from speeding fines, but perhaps you are not as good as you think and one day your speed will kill yourself or someone else.
[quote][p][bold]jquain[/bold] wrote: Yawn! Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.[/p][/quote]Speeding is poor driving. These stories always annoy everyone. You get the usual comments of ' why can't they catch real criminals?' , ' when someone broke into my garage it took them hours to get here'. I would imagine some think pulling over someone for flashing drivers to warn that the police are about is not fair, however this resulted in another uninsured driver off the road. They are just doing their job and that is to keep the roads as safe as possible. I realise that some people think that they drive at excessive speed really well, so should be immune from speeding fines, but perhaps you are not as good as you think and one day your speed will kill yourself or someone else. user_name
  • Score: 46

7:59am Thu 28 Aug 14

retry69 says...

jquain wrote:
Yawn!

Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.
Yawn !
[quote][p][bold]jquain[/bold] wrote: Yawn! Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.[/p][/quote]Yawn ! retry69
  • Score: 10

8:19am Thu 28 Aug 14

bobthedestroyer says...

"Why can't they focus on people breaking the law" oh hang on they are. Speeding may seem trivial but I'd hate to see what would happen if a bike doing 115mph lost control.
"Why can't they focus on people breaking the law" oh hang on they are. Speeding may seem trivial but I'd hate to see what would happen if a bike doing 115mph lost control. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 31

8:34am Thu 28 Aug 14

lioneart23 says...

Never saw the Police up Slades Farm the other week chasing the kids on Quad bikes wernt they flouting the law as SGNT PITMAN says you keep to easy target members of the public SGNT Pitman
Never saw the Police up Slades Farm the other week chasing the kids on Quad bikes wernt they flouting the law as SGNT PITMAN says you keep to easy target members of the public SGNT Pitman lioneart23
  • Score: -3

8:35am Thu 28 Aug 14

retry69 says...

lioneart23 wrote:
Never saw the Police up Slades Farm the other week chasing the kids on Quad bikes wernt they flouting the law as SGNT PITMAN says you keep to easy target members of the public SGNT Pitman
They were !
[quote][p][bold]lioneart23[/bold] wrote: Never saw the Police up Slades Farm the other week chasing the kids on Quad bikes wernt they flouting the law as SGNT PITMAN says you keep to easy target members of the public SGNT Pitman[/p][/quote]They were ! retry69
  • Score: 9

8:38am Thu 28 Aug 14

Controversial But True says...

folkprotector wrote:
Controversial But True wrote:
Dorset Police could utilise on those useless nonsense PCSOs and let them stand at the roadside holding a hairdryer!
Uh?
They look a bit like (real) police holding a speed gun from a distance!!
[quote][p][bold]folkprotector[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: Dorset Police could utilise on those useless nonsense PCSOs and let them stand at the roadside holding a hairdryer![/p][/quote]Uh?[/p][/quote]They look a bit like (real) police holding a speed gun from a distance!! Controversial But True
  • Score: -3

8:38am Thu 28 Aug 14

lioneart23 says...

SGNT Pitman you're body language shows signs of nervousness in the video
SGNT Pitman you're body language shows signs of nervousness in the video lioneart23
  • Score: 2

8:54am Thu 28 Aug 14

suzigirl says...

bobthedestroyer wrote:
"Why can't they focus on people breaking the law" oh hang on they are. Speeding may seem trivial but I'd hate to see what would happen if a bike doing 115mph lost control.
Probably not as much damage as a Citroen Dispatch doing 91 mph losing control!
[quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: "Why can't they focus on people breaking the law" oh hang on they are. Speeding may seem trivial but I'd hate to see what would happen if a bike doing 115mph lost control.[/p][/quote]Probably not as much damage as a Citroen Dispatch doing 91 mph losing control! suzigirl
  • Score: 5

9:25am Thu 28 Aug 14

Sue001 says...

Dorset Way and the Upton by-pass are not the same road.. Shoddy reporting yet again. Should've had a pic of a police officer with his arms crossed at least...
Dorset Way and the Upton by-pass are not the same road.. Shoddy reporting yet again. Should've had a pic of a police officer with his arms crossed at least... Sue001
  • Score: 9

9:27am Thu 28 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Well done Dorset Police, more bleating criminals nicked, more money in the kitty, more money saved in taxes and insurance costs for law abiding citizens, keep up the good work.

Next you can concentrate on the cyclists who are doing well over 115mph on the pavements. Something really needs to be done about the thousands of pedestrians being killed every day but nobody takes a blind bit of notice.
Well done Dorset Police, more bleating criminals nicked, more money in the kitty, more money saved in taxes and insurance costs for law abiding citizens, keep up the good work. Next you can concentrate on the cyclists who are doing well over 115mph on the pavements. Something really needs to be done about the thousands of pedestrians being killed every day but nobody takes a blind bit of notice. breamoreboy
  • Score: -9

9:38am Thu 28 Aug 14

BarrHumbug says...

If the focus of the evenings action was on Bikers then perhaps it would have been a good idea to check the weather forecast first ;)
If the focus of the evenings action was on Bikers then perhaps it would have been a good idea to check the weather forecast first ;) BarrHumbug
  • Score: 3

10:11am Thu 28 Aug 14

rusty2009 says...

To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits.

But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more . rusty2009
  • Score: 10

10:57am Thu 28 Aug 14

retry69 says...

rusty2009 wrote:
To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits.

But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Yes I agree it is just a shame the Echo chose not to print a letter I sent regarding an HGV vehicle being driven along Slades Farm Road between the parked cars,it had warning signs on the rear about certain loads and watch for cyclists yet not one about the driver may be on his mobile phone whilst driving.
[quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Yes I agree it is just a shame the Echo chose not to print a letter I sent regarding an HGV vehicle being driven along Slades Farm Road between the parked cars,it had warning signs on the rear about certain loads and watch for cyclists yet not one about the driver may be on his mobile phone whilst driving. retry69
  • Score: 4

11:53am Thu 28 Aug 14

Stereotyped says...

rusty2009 wrote:
To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits.

But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree.

Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times.

The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
[quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving. Stereotyped
  • Score: 9

11:59am Thu 28 Aug 14

Judd3rman says...

If a driver is doing a couple of mph over the limit then you are unlikely to get caught or at worst maybe a talking to, but if you are doing 10 or more mph over then you doing the police a favour by giving them the evidence they need. Now that is dealt with, let's see a real effort against mobile phone users who aren't concentrating on where they are going, or the kid they are about to run over in the street.
If a driver is doing a couple of mph over the limit then you are unlikely to get caught or at worst maybe a talking to, but if you are doing 10 or more mph over then you doing the police a favour by giving them the evidence they need. Now that is dealt with, let's see a real effort against mobile phone users who aren't concentrating on where they are going, or the kid they are about to run over in the street. Judd3rman
  • Score: 14

12:32pm Thu 28 Aug 14

skydriver says...

Clearly the driver was not as bright as the dogs on the track.!
Clearly the driver was not as bright as the dogs on the track.! skydriver
  • Score: 6

1:23pm Thu 28 Aug 14

gonzo123 says...

Borring old plod doing useless police work once again yaaawn. Why not pull over people doing 30 on a 40 or people in the right hand lane slow long traffic down or people taking 5 mins to leave the roundabout....there'
s plenty of slow dangerous drivers k tell you
Borring old plod doing useless police work once again yaaawn. Why not pull over people doing 30 on a 40 or people in the right hand lane slow long traffic down or people taking 5 mins to leave the roundabout....there' s plenty of slow dangerous drivers k tell you gonzo123
  • Score: -13

1:27pm Thu 28 Aug 14

spooki says...

It doesn't surprise me that a BMW was cop aught speeding, it only surprises me that someone caught them doing it! Lack or care about other people on the road is a BIG bug bear of mine. Use your indicators/mirrors/b
rakes! I'm concentrating on nap being a good driver. I shouldn't have to worry about other people's mistakes.
It doesn't surprise me that a BMW was cop aught speeding, it only surprises me that someone caught them doing it! Lack or care about other people on the road is a BIG bug bear of mine. Use your indicators/mirrors/b rakes! I'm concentrating on nap being a good driver. I shouldn't have to worry about other people's mistakes. spooki
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Thu 28 Aug 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

jquain wrote:
Yawn!

Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.
The faster you do all those examples then the more dangerous it is
[quote][p][bold]jquain[/bold] wrote: Yawn! Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.[/p][/quote]The faster you do all those examples then the more dangerous it is HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 4

1:51pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Top_Gear says...

Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available.

Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you. Top_Gear
  • Score: -5

2:29pm Thu 28 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

FNS-man wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
This will one day be exposed as one of the biggest scandals there have been. I can confidently use the words corruption and fraud in relation to Dorset Polices moneymaking / job preservation purposes in relation to speed cameras, and Martyn Underhill is now right in the middle of it and protecting it.

The bottom line is that allowing those whose jobs depend on enforcement income to decide on enforcement activities (a fundamental and blatant conflict of interest) is corrupting the Police and numerous other authorities and preventing honest and effective road safety work, and its therefore costing lives. And it shows - while "driver education" has been massively ramped up in Dorset in the last few years, and we have had to put up with congestion and pollution increase resulting from absurd traffic calming projects, speed reductions, lane removals and traffic lights etc., the steep negative slope we had for road deaths and serious injuries has halted and is now increasing and road deaths have gone up every year.

Full info about the cover up is now on my home page: www.dorsetspeed.org.



uk
You really are a tedious little man.
Maybe, but I am an accurate tedious little man unless you can point out any errors.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: This will one day be exposed as one of the biggest scandals there have been. I can confidently use the words corruption and fraud in relation to Dorset Polices moneymaking / job preservation purposes in relation to speed cameras, and Martyn Underhill is now right in the middle of it and protecting it. The bottom line is that allowing those whose jobs depend on enforcement income to decide on enforcement activities (a fundamental and blatant conflict of interest) is corrupting the Police and numerous other authorities and preventing honest and effective road safety work, and its therefore costing lives. And it shows - while "driver education" has been massively ramped up in Dorset in the last few years, and we have had to put up with congestion and pollution increase resulting from absurd traffic calming projects, speed reductions, lane removals and traffic lights etc., the steep negative slope we had for road deaths and serious injuries has halted and is now increasing and road deaths have gone up every year. Full info about the cover up is now on my home page: www.dorsetspeed.org. uk[/p][/quote]You really are a tedious little man.[/p][/quote]Maybe, but I am an accurate tedious little man unless you can point out any errors. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

2:36pm Thu 28 Aug 14

bobthedestroyer says...

suzigirl wrote:
bobthedestroyer wrote:
"Why can't they focus on people breaking the law" oh hang on they are. Speeding may seem trivial but I'd hate to see what would happen if a bike doing 115mph lost control.
Probably not as much damage as a Citroen Dispatch doing 91 mph losing control!
I wasn't singling out bikes was just an example.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: "Why can't they focus on people breaking the law" oh hang on they are. Speeding may seem trivial but I'd hate to see what would happen if a bike doing 115mph lost control.[/p][/quote]Probably not as much damage as a Citroen Dispatch doing 91 mph losing control![/p][/quote]I wasn't singling out bikes was just an example. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: -2

2:46pm Thu 28 Aug 14

contric says...

the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls
the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls contric
  • Score: 2

2:59pm Thu 28 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

contric wrote:
the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls
or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls[/p][/quote]or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money dorsetspeed
  • Score: 8

3:02pm Thu 28 Aug 14

In Absentia says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
contric wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls
or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money
Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls[/p][/quote]or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money[/p][/quote]Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself. In Absentia
  • Score: -4

3:25pm Thu 28 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

In Absentia wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
contric wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls
or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money
Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Not really, it all comes from the same failings, personal interest, greed, lack of transparency, accountability, competence, honesty, etc etc. Probably more people have died in Dorset, directly and or indirectly, due to misguided roads policing, than have died in Rotherham due to abuse.
[quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls[/p][/quote]or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money[/p][/quote]Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]Not really, it all comes from the same failings, personal interest, greed, lack of transparency, accountability, competence, honesty, etc etc. Probably more people have died in Dorset, directly and or indirectly, due to misguided roads policing, than have died in Rotherham due to abuse. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

3:42pm Thu 28 Aug 14

uvox44 says...

not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p
arty style rubbish!
not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p arty style rubbish! uvox44
  • Score: -1

3:49pm Thu 28 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p

arty style rubbish!
They could be targeting other offences but 194/200 (97%) were "speeding", so it doesn't look like they were.

uvox44, perhpas you can point out what is "rubbish", no one else seems to be able to?

I and many others won't have any confidence in Dorset Police, whatever they do, until they properly answer some of the legitimate concerns that have been put to them instead of hiding from them.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p arty style rubbish![/p][/quote]They could be targeting other offences but 194/200 (97%) were "speeding", so it doesn't look like they were. uvox44, perhpas you can point out what is "rubbish", no one else seems to be able to? I and many others won't have any confidence in Dorset Police, whatever they do, until they properly answer some of the legitimate concerns that have been put to them instead of hiding from them. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

3:53pm Thu 28 Aug 14

Top_Gear says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote: not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p arty style rubbish!
They could be targeting other offences but 194/200 (97%) were "speeding", so it doesn't look like they were. uvox44, perhpas you can point out what is "rubbish", no one else seems to be able to? I and many others won't have any confidence in Dorset Police, whatever they do, until they properly answer some of the legitimate concerns that have been put to them instead of hiding from them.
Want to know what's rubbish? Your website.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p arty style rubbish![/p][/quote]They could be targeting other offences but 194/200 (97%) were "speeding", so it doesn't look like they were. uvox44, perhpas you can point out what is "rubbish", no one else seems to be able to? I and many others won't have any confidence in Dorset Police, whatever they do, until they properly answer some of the legitimate concerns that have been put to them instead of hiding from them.[/p][/quote]Want to know what's rubbish? Your website. Top_Gear
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Thu 28 Aug 14

In Absentia says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
In Absentia wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
contric wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls
or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money
Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Not really, it all comes from the same failings, personal interest, greed, lack of transparency, accountability, competence, honesty, etc etc. Probably more people have died in Dorset, directly and or indirectly, due to misguided roads policing, than have died in Rotherham due to abuse.
You really have lost all sense of perspective with your petty local obsession.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls[/p][/quote]or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money[/p][/quote]Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]Not really, it all comes from the same failings, personal interest, greed, lack of transparency, accountability, competence, honesty, etc etc. Probably more people have died in Dorset, directly and or indirectly, due to misguided roads policing, than have died in Rotherham due to abuse.[/p][/quote]You really have lost all sense of perspective with your petty local obsession. In Absentia
  • Score: 1

4:05pm Thu 28 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

Thank you TopGear and InAbsentia for demonstrating you are unable to point out any errors in my observations.
Thank you TopGear and InAbsentia for demonstrating you are unable to point out any errors in my observations. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

4:53pm Thu 28 Aug 14

uvox44 says...

dorsetspeed- great assumptions there on your behalf- because the main problem they found was speeding that must mean that they were ignoring other offences! Guess it wouldn't do for you to admit the other obvious explanation - that the majority of offences WERE speeding?! Was it not you that was moaning about speed cameras and the need for real traffic police ? I'm sure it was. What exactly will stop your obsessive moaning?
dorsetspeed- great assumptions there on your behalf- because the main problem they found was speeding that must mean that they were ignoring other offences! Guess it wouldn't do for you to admit the other obvious explanation - that the majority of offences WERE speeding?! Was it not you that was moaning about speed cameras and the need for real traffic police ? I'm sure it was. What exactly will stop your obsessive moaning? uvox44
  • Score: 2

5:09pm Thu 28 Aug 14

uvox44 says...

and Dorsetspeed if you have all the facts and proof to back up your claims that there is fraud and corruption occurring I'm surprised you haven't launched a private prosecuction , as anyone is entitled to do in law, perhaps your "facts" aren't quite as sound as you'd like to believe?
and Dorsetspeed if you have all the facts and proof to back up your claims that there is fraud and corruption occurring I'm surprised you haven't launched a private prosecuction , as anyone is entitled to do in law, perhaps your "facts" aren't quite as sound as you'd like to believe? uvox44
  • Score: 2

6:01pm Thu 28 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed- great assumptions there on your behalf- because the main problem they found was speeding that must mean that they were ignoring other offences! Guess it wouldn't do for you to admit the other obvious explanation - that the majority of offences WERE speeding?! Was it not you that was moaning about speed cameras and the need for real traffic police ? I'm sure it was. What exactly will stop your obsessive moaning?
Makes no difference really, you applauded having "real police" but the outcome was pretty much the same as just having a speed camera. I'm happy they caught an uninsured driver and a couple of lunatic speeders but if they hadn't been so busy with harmless, marginal "speeders" they might have caught many more.

A private prosecution would cost hundreds of thousands, of course I'm not getting into that, we'll see how the IPCC appeal goes but that's basically the police policing the police.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed- great assumptions there on your behalf- because the main problem they found was speeding that must mean that they were ignoring other offences! Guess it wouldn't do for you to admit the other obvious explanation - that the majority of offences WERE speeding?! Was it not you that was moaning about speed cameras and the need for real traffic police ? I'm sure it was. What exactly will stop your obsessive moaning?[/p][/quote]Makes no difference really, you applauded having "real police" but the outcome was pretty much the same as just having a speed camera. I'm happy they caught an uninsured driver and a couple of lunatic speeders but if they hadn't been so busy with harmless, marginal "speeders" they might have caught many more. A private prosecution would cost hundreds of thousands, of course I'm not getting into that, we'll see how the IPCC appeal goes but that's basically the police policing the police. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Thu 28 Aug 14

uvox44 says...

dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police!
dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police! uvox44
  • Score: 2

7:47pm Thu 28 Aug 14

gonzo123 says...

Speeding is fun.
Speeding is fun. gonzo123
  • Score: -3

7:48pm Thu 28 Aug 14

ashleycross says...

You shouldn't be able to get insurance without a certificate from your doctor to show you are a) not nuts b) not on medication that stops you driving and a recent eye test . This would have happened years ago and saved the police a lot of time catching people who cant' even see their speedo if it wasn't for the ceaseless efforts of the AA campaigning against road safety.
You shouldn't be able to get insurance without a certificate from your doctor to show you are a) not nuts b) not on medication that stops you driving and a recent eye test . This would have happened years ago and saved the police a lot of time catching people who cant' even see their speedo if it wasn't for the ceaseless efforts of the AA campaigning against road safety. ashleycross
  • Score: 1

8:23pm Thu 28 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police!
The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police![/p][/quote]The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

12:10am Fri 29 Aug 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police!
The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police
My god you just don't give up do you? Trying to dominate these postings yet again. You have 'no excuse' for repeating your contemptuous ghastly accusations again and again you revolting individual. Go and crawl back under that stone please.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police![/p][/quote]The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police[/p][/quote]My god you just don't give up do you? Trying to dominate these postings yet again. You have 'no excuse' for repeating your contemptuous ghastly accusations again and again you revolting individual. Go and crawl back under that stone please. tbpoole
  • Score: 5

1:19am Fri 29 Aug 14

Jack loveme says...

jquain wrote:
Yawn!

Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.
sorry to say so but speeding is dangerous for the poor person that thay smash into and needs a much heavier sentence.
[quote][p][bold]jquain[/bold] wrote: Yawn! Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.[/p][/quote]sorry to say so but speeding is dangerous for the poor person that thay smash into and needs a much heavier sentence. Jack loveme
  • Score: 6

1:19am Fri 29 Aug 14

Jack loveme says...

jquain wrote:
Yawn!

Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.
sorry to say so but speeding is dangerous for the poor person that thay smash into and needs a much heavier sentence.
[quote][p][bold]jquain[/bold] wrote: Yawn! Why can't they focus more on poor driving rather than just speeding? For example; not signalling, cutting people up, middle/right lane hogging etc.[/p][/quote]sorry to say so but speeding is dangerous for the poor person that thay smash into and needs a much heavier sentence. Jack loveme
  • Score: 7

1:38am Fri 29 Aug 14

Jack loveme says...

Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote:
To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits.

But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree.

Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times.

The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
Rubbish. I was behind a police car doing 80 on a motorway. He had a blowout in the front tyre. he swerved from side to side then turned over twice. This with a trained police driver. SO at as slower speed he may have controled it.
[quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. I was behind a police car doing 80 on a motorway. He had a blowout in the front tyre. he swerved from side to side then turned over twice. This with a trained police driver. SO at as slower speed he may have controled it. Jack loveme
  • Score: -4

1:49am Fri 29 Aug 14

Jack loveme says...

gonzo123 wrote:
Borring old plod doing useless police work once again yaaawn. Why not pull over people doing 30 on a 40 or people in the right hand lane slow long traffic down or people taking 5 mins to leave the roundabout....there'

s plenty of slow dangerous drivers k tell you
It's not the slow one's . It's people in a rush that are the problem.
[quote][p][bold]gonzo123[/bold] wrote: Borring old plod doing useless police work once again yaaawn. Why not pull over people doing 30 on a 40 or people in the right hand lane slow long traffic down or people taking 5 mins to leave the roundabout....there' s plenty of slow dangerous drivers k tell you[/p][/quote]It's not the slow one's . It's people in a rush that are the problem. Jack loveme
  • Score: 0

2:04am Fri 29 Aug 14

Jack loveme says...

contric wrote:
the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls
That's a diferant subject. The police cant do anything to Ethnic minoritys or TRAVELERS for fear of being called racist.
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls[/p][/quote]That's a diferant subject. The police cant do anything to Ethnic minoritys or TRAVELERS for fear of being called racist. Jack loveme
  • Score: 0

8:52am Fri 29 Aug 14

scrumpyjack says...

Top_Gear wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available.

Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.
Why are the majority likely to be travelling at 10 mph below the speed lmit - do they not have the capability to go faster if conditions permit?
[quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.[/p][/quote]Why are the majority likely to be travelling at 10 mph below the speed lmit - do they not have the capability to go faster if conditions permit? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

8:55am Fri 29 Aug 14

John of Southbourne says...

I had to do the road safety awareness course a couple of years ago (btw, absolutely brilliant and everyone should have to do it every 5 years in my opinion) and the stats given at the time seemed to suggest that speeding in 30 mph areas resulted in more accidents and casualties by far. There is clearly a need for monitoring of speed on main roads, but shouldn't the priority be to get on top of this first? We constantly have boy racers going flat out on Beaufort Road and (although I've reported it) nothing has happened, presumably because traffic officers are sat on dual carriage ways. I think the police are doing a good job, but if the information on the course was correct, the current strategy seems somewhat flawed and IS a PR disaster! That is all.
I had to do the road safety awareness course a couple of years ago (btw, absolutely brilliant and everyone should have to do it every 5 years in my opinion) and the stats given at the time seemed to suggest that speeding in 30 mph areas resulted in more accidents and casualties by far. There is clearly a need for monitoring of speed on main roads, but shouldn't the priority be to get on top of this first? We constantly have boy racers going flat out on Beaufort Road and (although I've reported it) nothing has happened, presumably because traffic officers are sat on dual carriage ways. I think the police are doing a good job, but if the information on the course was correct, the current strategy seems somewhat flawed and IS a PR disaster! That is all. John of Southbourne
  • Score: 4

8:56am Fri 29 Aug 14

scrumpyjack says...

Top_Gear wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available.

Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.
And it's an overtaking lane not a 'fast' lane (especially as you clearly do not even hit the allowable speed limit)
[quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.[/p][/quote]And it's an overtaking lane not a 'fast' lane (especially as you clearly do not even hit the allowable speed limit) scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

9:09am Fri 29 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police!
The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police
My god you just don't give up do you? Trying to dominate these postings yet again. You have 'no excuse' for repeating your contemptuous ghastly accusations again and again you revolting individual. Go and crawl back under that stone please.
"ghastly" they are but allegations they are not, they happened, they are history, cast in stone. As I explained, Dorset Police lied in the original greed on green press release by telling us it was a casualty reduction operation. When they were forced to release site statistics, it showed the site had a ZERO ksi count and even zero slights for the previous 4 years. They changed the lie to one of "community concern" but were then completely unable to quantify any relevant to the site. They lied too when they shut it down claiming it was to save money!!!!!

When I asked about course costs they also had to have them forced out of them and then the top 4 were clearly vastly inflated probably to hide course profit. For 3 and a half years they have refused to detail them, although one of them has now been confirmed as inflated from £14K to £71K and even despite this the conclusion of Martyn Underhill remains that there has been no financial misrepresentation!!!


The only way these can be disputed is to get in a time machine, go back and make them unhappen. This is why what we see from MU and Dorset Police, heads firmly in the sand, is all that happens.

I want open, honest, competent and effective policing, this is not. I will crawl back under my stone as soon as someone takes a bit of responsibility and acknowledges these and many other failings, demonstrates that lessons have been learned and that things will be improved. Unfortunately now that Martyn Underhill has demonstrated he would prefer to try to save face rather than expose corruption and incompetence in his force which seem no better today, it might take quite a bit more time.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police![/p][/quote]The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police[/p][/quote]My god you just don't give up do you? Trying to dominate these postings yet again. You have 'no excuse' for repeating your contemptuous ghastly accusations again and again you revolting individual. Go and crawl back under that stone please.[/p][/quote]"ghastly" they are but allegations they are not, they happened, they are history, cast in stone. As I explained, Dorset Police lied in the original greed on green press release by telling us it was a casualty reduction operation. When they were forced to release site statistics, it showed the site had a ZERO ksi count and even zero slights for the previous 4 years. They changed the lie to one of "community concern" but were then completely unable to quantify any relevant to the site. They lied too when they shut it down claiming it was to save money!!!!! When I asked about course costs they also had to have them forced out of them and then the top 4 were clearly vastly inflated probably to hide course profit. For 3 and a half years they have refused to detail them, although one of them has now been confirmed as inflated from £14K to £71K and even despite this the conclusion of Martyn Underhill remains that there has been no financial misrepresentation!!! The only way these can be disputed is to get in a time machine, go back and make them unhappen. This is why what we see from MU and Dorset Police, heads firmly in the sand, is all that happens. I want open, honest, competent and effective policing, this is not. I will crawl back under my stone as soon as someone takes a bit of responsibility and acknowledges these and many other failings, demonstrates that lessons have been learned and that things will be improved. Unfortunately now that Martyn Underhill has demonstrated he would prefer to try to save face rather than expose corruption and incompetence in his force which seem no better today, it might take quite a bit more time. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -4

11:40am Fri 29 Aug 14

Minty Fresh says...

I see the censor monkeys at Echo towers have been at it again.
So, did someone at DP not like my comment that they are more interested in revenue generation than actually doing their job? You know, like catching killers, robbers, drug dealers or heaven forbid doing something about the nomadic scum infesting our town and breaking law after law. Much easier to hit the soft target motorists isn't it you parasites?
I see the censor monkeys at Echo towers have been at it again. So, did someone at DP not like my comment that they are more interested in revenue generation than actually doing their job? You know, like catching killers, robbers, drug dealers or heaven forbid doing something about the nomadic scum infesting our town and breaking law after law. Much easier to hit the soft target motorists isn't it you parasites? Minty Fresh
  • Score: -4

5:19pm Fri 29 Aug 14

tbpoole says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
I see the censor monkeys at Echo towers have been at it again.
So, did someone at DP not like my comment that they are more interested in revenue generation than actually doing their job? You know, like catching killers, robbers, drug dealers or heaven forbid doing something about the nomadic scum infesting our town and breaking law after law. Much easier to hit the soft target motorists isn't it you parasites?
You're the parasite mate.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I see the censor monkeys at Echo towers have been at it again. So, did someone at DP not like my comment that they are more interested in revenue generation than actually doing their job? You know, like catching killers, robbers, drug dealers or heaven forbid doing something about the nomadic scum infesting our town and breaking law after law. Much easier to hit the soft target motorists isn't it you parasites?[/p][/quote]You're the parasite mate. tbpoole
  • Score: 3

10:19pm Fri 29 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
If the focus of the evenings action was on Bikers then perhaps it would have been a good idea to check the weather forecast first ;)
"The gap between common sense and common practice has never been wider".
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: If the focus of the evenings action was on Bikers then perhaps it would have been a good idea to check the weather forecast first ;)[/p][/quote]"The gap between common sense and common practice has never been wider". breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

10:24pm Fri 29 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Top_Gear wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available.

Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.
I wasn't aware that any of our roads had fast lanes on them, I thought on motorways they should be called overtaking lanes. Then if I'm correct the name Top_Gear probably sums things up, assuming it refers to that absolutely appalling farce on TV.
[quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.[/p][/quote]I wasn't aware that any of our roads had fast lanes on them, I thought on motorways they should be called overtaking lanes. Then if I'm correct the name Top_Gear probably sums things up, assuming it refers to that absolutely appalling farce on TV. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

10:27pm Fri 29 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
In Absentia wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
contric wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls
or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money
Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Not really, it all comes from the same failings, personal interest, greed, lack of transparency, accountability, competence, honesty, etc etc. Probably more people have died in Dorset, directly and or indirectly, due to misguided roads policing, than have died in Rotherham due to abuse.
I think I'll give up my atheist beliefs temporarily and pray that you join the casualty list, then we won't have to put up with your garbage. What a wonderful though, Dead Stupid dead.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]In Absentia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: the excuses used by the motorists are not as bad as the excuses by the gutless police and other councillors in rotherham for their lack of action to protect young girls[/p][/quote]or even the non-excuses from Martyn Underhill and Dorset Police about false accounting, corruption and fraud around speed enforcement money[/p][/quote]Are you really putting your safety camera concerns into the same context as the scandals in Rotherham? You should be ashamed of yourself.[/p][/quote]Not really, it all comes from the same failings, personal interest, greed, lack of transparency, accountability, competence, honesty, etc etc. Probably more people have died in Dorset, directly and or indirectly, due to misguided roads policing, than have died in Rotherham due to abuse.[/p][/quote]I think I'll give up my atheist beliefs temporarily and pray that you join the casualty list, then we won't have to put up with your garbage. What a wonderful though, Dead Stupid dead. breamoreboy
  • Score: -11

10:32pm Fri 29 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Jack loveme wrote:
gonzo123 wrote:
Borring old plod doing useless police work once again yaaawn. Why not pull over people doing 30 on a 40 or people in the right hand lane slow long traffic down or people taking 5 mins to leave the roundabout....there'


s plenty of slow dangerous drivers k tell you
It's not the slow one's . It's people in a rush that are the problem.
It's not the slow ones, it's not the fast ones, it's simply the ones who can't drive, particularly on our heavily congested roads.
[quote][p][bold]Jack loveme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gonzo123[/bold] wrote: Borring old plod doing useless police work once again yaaawn. Why not pull over people doing 30 on a 40 or people in the right hand lane slow long traffic down or people taking 5 mins to leave the roundabout....there' s plenty of slow dangerous drivers k tell you[/p][/quote]It's not the slow one's . It's people in a rush that are the problem.[/p][/quote]It's not the slow ones, it's not the fast ones, it's simply the ones who can't drive, particularly on our heavily congested roads. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

10:36pm Fri 29 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

Minty Fresh wrote:
I see the censor monkeys at Echo towers have been at it again.
So, did someone at DP not like my comment that they are more interested in revenue generation than actually doing their job? You know, like catching killers, robbers, drug dealers or heaven forbid doing something about the nomadic scum infesting our town and breaking law after law. Much easier to hit the soft target motorists isn't it you parasites?
It sure is, and if it keeps my taxes down I'm all for it. Blow you Jack, I'm alright seems to be the modern way of living, so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
[quote][p][bold]Minty Fresh[/bold] wrote: I see the censor monkeys at Echo towers have been at it again. So, did someone at DP not like my comment that they are more interested in revenue generation than actually doing their job? You know, like catching killers, robbers, drug dealers or heaven forbid doing something about the nomadic scum infesting our town and breaking law after law. Much easier to hit the soft target motorists isn't it you parasites?[/p][/quote]It sure is, and if it keeps my taxes down I'm all for it. Blow you Jack, I'm alright seems to be the modern way of living, so if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. breamoreboy
  • Score: -5

11:26pm Fri 29 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy, you have now confirmed that your comments are unworthy of any response or credibility, you cannot in any civilized debate address those who disagree with with you as "dead stupid" or wish them to die. It comes as little surprise to me that such a message would come from someone who is a speed camera supporter.
breamoreboy, you have now confirmed that your comments are unworthy of any response or credibility, you cannot in any civilized debate address those who disagree with with you as "dead stupid" or wish them to die. It comes as little surprise to me that such a message would come from someone who is a speed camera supporter. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

9:16am Sat 30 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy, you have now confirmed that your comments are unworthy of any response or credibility, you cannot in any civilized debate address those who disagree with with you as "dead stupid" or wish them to die. It comes as little surprise to me that such a message would come from someone who is a speed camera supporter.
As that comes from a typical brain dead idiot that seems to be in the majority on this site I can't say I'm too bothered.

I'm also extremely pleased to see that more on the spot fines are being introduced and that they're going up to £100. That's excellent, if only because there'll be more squealing, bleating motorists to listen to, music to my ears.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: breamoreboy, you have now confirmed that your comments are unworthy of any response or credibility, you cannot in any civilized debate address those who disagree with with you as "dead stupid" or wish them to die. It comes as little surprise to me that such a message would come from someone who is a speed camera supporter.[/p][/quote]As that comes from a typical brain dead idiot that seems to be in the majority on this site I can't say I'm too bothered. I'm also extremely pleased to see that more on the spot fines are being introduced and that they're going up to £100. That's excellent, if only because there'll be more squealing, bleating motorists to listen to, music to my ears. breamoreboy
  • Score: -5

7:25pm Sat 30 Aug 14

uvox44 says...

too all the conspiracy tax scam moaners - here is a sure fire way to blow this whole govt/police scam out the water - stick to the speed limit! Wow what a revolutionary idea!
But how i hear you stammer - well I'm about to tell you a secret THEY ( fill in the name of your favourite dark forces here) don't want you to know- their whole scheme has a fatal flaw - they have put up signs that , if you know how to interpret them , tell you the maximum speed for any stretch of road! Unbelievable eh? They are the numbers in a circular sign with a red border .
Now here's the clever bit- if you make sure the little red arrow on that circular dial in your car does not go above the number on the signs you can't be scammed! it's a crazy error in this sophisticated scam that Dorsetspeed and others have shockingly exposed on here (ad naseum) but try it - it works!!
too all the conspiracy tax scam moaners - here is a sure fire way to blow this whole govt/police scam out the water - stick to the speed limit! Wow what a revolutionary idea! But how i hear you stammer - well I'm about to tell you a secret THEY ( fill in the name of your favourite dark forces here) don't want you to know- their whole scheme has a fatal flaw - they have put up signs that , if you know how to interpret them , tell you the maximum speed for any stretch of road! Unbelievable eh? They are the numbers in a circular sign with a red border . Now here's the clever bit- if you make sure the little red arrow on that circular dial in your car does not go above the number on the signs you can't be scammed! it's a crazy error in this sophisticated scam that Dorsetspeed and others have shockingly exposed on here (ad naseum) but try it - it works!! uvox44
  • Score: -1

9:17pm Sat 30 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

uvox44 wrote:
too all the conspiracy tax scam moaners - here is a sure fire way to blow this whole govt/police scam out the water - stick to the speed limit! Wow what a revolutionary idea!
But how i hear you stammer - well I'm about to tell you a secret THEY ( fill in the name of your favourite dark forces here) don't want you to know- their whole scheme has a fatal flaw - they have put up signs that , if you know how to interpret them , tell you the maximum speed for any stretch of road! Unbelievable eh? They are the numbers in a circular sign with a red border .
Now here's the clever bit- if you make sure the little red arrow on that circular dial in your car does not go above the number on the signs you can't be scammed! it's a crazy error in this sophisticated scam that Dorsetspeed and others have shockingly exposed on here (ad naseum) but try it - it works!!
Yes we know that if you don't speed you won't get scammed. That is one issue. Another issue is that Police forces are being corrupt and ineffective. It would be good if people did not "speed". But it would be even better if our police were not corrupt and ineffective.

Remember, we are being told that this is about road safety, not blind enforcement of the law. But while the most ridiculous speed limit reductions and enforcements have been rolled out in recent years, the decline in KSIs has halted and reversed.

It is clear that if we want to reduce road KSIs, it is (unsurprisingly) a bit more complicated than numbers and dials.

If the police want to work with numbers and dials, they can only tell us they are enforcing the law. If they want to tell us that they are working for our safety, they have to do something a great deal more sophisticated.

And it makes no difference how idiotic / dangerous a driver is who is doing 34 in a 30. It is a great deal more dangerous and idiotic to introduce enforcement with the direct aim of making money, and then to lie to the public and tell them that it is for their safety, when no safety improvement is even possible (such as the greed on green). Or to lie about where all the money goes. Or to, against guidance, sneak in an adjustment to course repeat eligibility so drivers can retake it every 6 months instead of 3 years (making a mockery of the claimed course benefits and allowing repeat speeding offenders to stay on the road) at the same time massively increasing course throughput and income, therefore massively increasing your job prospects and security, etc etc.

I will have nothing against limits, enforcements, and courses, etc. once these blatant conflicts of interest and massive dishonesties are brought under control and operations and finances become open and transparent and demonstrated to be the best way to reduce road trauma.

What could anyone possibly have against that, who is not currently feeding of the current corrupt regime?
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: too all the conspiracy tax scam moaners - here is a sure fire way to blow this whole govt/police scam out the water - stick to the speed limit! Wow what a revolutionary idea! But how i hear you stammer - well I'm about to tell you a secret THEY ( fill in the name of your favourite dark forces here) don't want you to know- their whole scheme has a fatal flaw - they have put up signs that , if you know how to interpret them , tell you the maximum speed for any stretch of road! Unbelievable eh? They are the numbers in a circular sign with a red border . Now here's the clever bit- if you make sure the little red arrow on that circular dial in your car does not go above the number on the signs you can't be scammed! it's a crazy error in this sophisticated scam that Dorsetspeed and others have shockingly exposed on here (ad naseum) but try it - it works!![/p][/quote]Yes we know that if you don't speed you won't get scammed. That is one issue. Another issue is that Police forces are being corrupt and ineffective. It would be good if people did not "speed". But it would be even better if our police were not corrupt and ineffective. Remember, we are being told that this is about road safety, not blind enforcement of the law. But while the most ridiculous speed limit reductions and enforcements have been rolled out in recent years, the decline in KSIs has halted and reversed. It is clear that if we want to reduce road KSIs, it is (unsurprisingly) a bit more complicated than numbers and dials. If the police want to work with numbers and dials, they can only tell us they are enforcing the law. If they want to tell us that they are working for our safety, they have to do something a great deal more sophisticated. And it makes no difference how idiotic / dangerous a driver is who is doing 34 in a 30. It is a great deal more dangerous and idiotic to introduce enforcement with the direct aim of making money, and then to lie to the public and tell them that it is for their safety, when no safety improvement is even possible (such as the greed on green). Or to lie about where all the money goes. Or to, against guidance, sneak in an adjustment to course repeat eligibility so drivers can retake it every 6 months instead of 3 years (making a mockery of the claimed course benefits and allowing repeat speeding offenders to stay on the road) at the same time massively increasing course throughput and income, therefore massively increasing your job prospects and security, etc etc. I will have nothing against limits, enforcements, and courses, etc. once these blatant conflicts of interest and massive dishonesties are brought under control and operations and finances become open and transparent and demonstrated to be the best way to reduce road trauma. What could anyone possibly have against that, who is not currently feeding of the current corrupt regime? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

11:53pm Sat 30 Aug 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
too all the conspiracy tax scam moaners - here is a sure fire way to blow this whole govt/police scam out the water - stick to the speed limit! Wow what a revolutionary idea!
But how i hear you stammer - well I'm about to tell you a secret THEY ( fill in the name of your favourite dark forces here) don't want you to know- their whole scheme has a fatal flaw - they have put up signs that , if you know how to interpret them , tell you the maximum speed for any stretch of road! Unbelievable eh? They are the numbers in a circular sign with a red border .
Now here's the clever bit- if you make sure the little red arrow on that circular dial in your car does not go above the number on the signs you can't be scammed! it's a crazy error in this sophisticated scam that Dorsetspeed and others have shockingly exposed on here (ad naseum) but try it - it works!!
Yes we know that if you don't speed you won't get scammed. That is one issue. Another issue is that Police forces are being corrupt and ineffective. It would be good if people did not "speed". But it would be even better if our police were not corrupt and ineffective.

Remember, we are being told that this is about road safety, not blind enforcement of the law. But while the most ridiculous speed limit reductions and enforcements have been rolled out in recent years, the decline in KSIs has halted and reversed.

It is clear that if we want to reduce road KSIs, it is (unsurprisingly) a bit more complicated than numbers and dials.

If the police want to work with numbers and dials, they can only tell us they are enforcing the law. If they want to tell us that they are working for our safety, they have to do something a great deal more sophisticated.

And it makes no difference how idiotic / dangerous a driver is who is doing 34 in a 30. It is a great deal more dangerous and idiotic to introduce enforcement with the direct aim of making money, and then to lie to the public and tell them that it is for their safety, when no safety improvement is even possible (such as the greed on green). Or to lie about where all the money goes. Or to, against guidance, sneak in an adjustment to course repeat eligibility so drivers can retake it every 6 months instead of 3 years (making a mockery of the claimed course benefits and allowing repeat speeding offenders to stay on the road) at the same time massively increasing course throughput and income, therefore massively increasing your job prospects and security, etc etc.

I will have nothing against limits, enforcements, and courses, etc. once these blatant conflicts of interest and massive dishonesties are brought under control and operations and finances become open and transparent and demonstrated to be the best way to reduce road trauma.

What could anyone possibly have against that, who is not currently feeding of the current corrupt regime?
Only someone as morally corrupt as dorsetspleen can keep turning these discussions around ad nauseam to try and make his point.

As uvox44 has repeated time and time again the speed limits are well signed and so there is no excuse for exceeding them. It is the driver who has chosen to disregard the limit by pushing too hard on the pedal. It is not the fault of the police that the driver has done so.

To claim it is simply a matter of police corruption is frankly obscene.

The driver has a responsibility under the Highway Code to obey the law, whether they personally choose to agree with it or not. It is the driver who introduces the risk, not the road, the speed limit or the presence or absence of police or cameras. Insurance companies will tell you that those who have speeding points on their licenses are more likely to be involved in crashes.

Get these drivers off the road or make them slow down and it will go some way to solving the problem. More power to the no excuse team.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: too all the conspiracy tax scam moaners - here is a sure fire way to blow this whole govt/police scam out the water - stick to the speed limit! Wow what a revolutionary idea! But how i hear you stammer - well I'm about to tell you a secret THEY ( fill in the name of your favourite dark forces here) don't want you to know- their whole scheme has a fatal flaw - they have put up signs that , if you know how to interpret them , tell you the maximum speed for any stretch of road! Unbelievable eh? They are the numbers in a circular sign with a red border . Now here's the clever bit- if you make sure the little red arrow on that circular dial in your car does not go above the number on the signs you can't be scammed! it's a crazy error in this sophisticated scam that Dorsetspeed and others have shockingly exposed on here (ad naseum) but try it - it works!![/p][/quote]Yes we know that if you don't speed you won't get scammed. That is one issue. Another issue is that Police forces are being corrupt and ineffective. It would be good if people did not "speed". But it would be even better if our police were not corrupt and ineffective. Remember, we are being told that this is about road safety, not blind enforcement of the law. But while the most ridiculous speed limit reductions and enforcements have been rolled out in recent years, the decline in KSIs has halted and reversed. It is clear that if we want to reduce road KSIs, it is (unsurprisingly) a bit more complicated than numbers and dials. If the police want to work with numbers and dials, they can only tell us they are enforcing the law. If they want to tell us that they are working for our safety, they have to do something a great deal more sophisticated. And it makes no difference how idiotic / dangerous a driver is who is doing 34 in a 30. It is a great deal more dangerous and idiotic to introduce enforcement with the direct aim of making money, and then to lie to the public and tell them that it is for their safety, when no safety improvement is even possible (such as the greed on green). Or to lie about where all the money goes. Or to, against guidance, sneak in an adjustment to course repeat eligibility so drivers can retake it every 6 months instead of 3 years (making a mockery of the claimed course benefits and allowing repeat speeding offenders to stay on the road) at the same time massively increasing course throughput and income, therefore massively increasing your job prospects and security, etc etc. I will have nothing against limits, enforcements, and courses, etc. once these blatant conflicts of interest and massive dishonesties are brought under control and operations and finances become open and transparent and demonstrated to be the best way to reduce road trauma. What could anyone possibly have against that, who is not currently feeding of the current corrupt regime?[/p][/quote]Only someone as morally corrupt as dorsetspleen can keep turning these discussions around ad nauseam to try and make his point. As uvox44 has repeated time and time again the speed limits are well signed and so there is no excuse for exceeding them. It is the driver who has chosen to disregard the limit by pushing too hard on the pedal. It is not the fault of the police that the driver has done so. To claim it is simply a matter of police corruption is frankly obscene. The driver has a responsibility under the Highway Code to obey the law, whether they personally choose to agree with it or not. It is the driver who introduces the risk, not the road, the speed limit or the presence or absence of police or cameras. Insurance companies will tell you that those who have speeding points on their licenses are more likely to be involved in crashes. Get these drivers off the road or make them slow down and it will go some way to solving the problem. More power to the no excuse team. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

10:11am Sun 31 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything?
Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else.

You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't.

I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts.

Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.
If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything? Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else. You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't. I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts. Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

11:12am Sun 31 Aug 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything?
Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else.

You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't.

I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts.

Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.
It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything? Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else. You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't. I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts. Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.[/p][/quote]It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption? tbpoole
  • Score: 1

12:20pm Sun 31 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything?
Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else.

You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't.

I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts.

Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.
It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption?
It is only corruption when individuals influence operations in a direction which will personally benefit themselves, while (dishonestly) trying to give the impression that those decisions have been made for a different reason, in order to try to deflect attention.

I doubt that there are any such motivations in parking enforcement, not as blatant anyway, as there are in speed enforcement where if the money doesn't come in the "partnership" will close and the senior partnership decision makers will be out of work.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything? Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else. You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't. I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts. Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.[/p][/quote]It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption?[/p][/quote]It is only corruption when individuals influence operations in a direction which will personally benefit themselves, while (dishonestly) trying to give the impression that those decisions have been made for a different reason, in order to try to deflect attention. I doubt that there are any such motivations in parking enforcement, not as blatant anyway, as there are in speed enforcement where if the money doesn't come in the "partnership" will close and the senior partnership decision makers will be out of work. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

3:17pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p


arty style rubbish!
They could be targeting other offences but 194/200 (97%) were "speeding", so it doesn't look like they were.

uvox44, perhpas you can point out what is "rubbish", no one else seems to be able to?

I and many others won't have any confidence in Dorset Police, whatever they do, until they properly answer some of the legitimate concerns that have been put to them instead of hiding from them.
Your entire web site is rubbish so that's two of us.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: not always a big fan of some police decisions but on this one a big WELL DONE! Just what Dorset speed has always wanted - real traffic police who can catch other motoring offences as well rather than just fixed speed cameras , no wonder he is on here happily praising this campaign - like hell he is, as usual he's spouting the same old conspiracy/tax/tea-p arty style rubbish![/p][/quote]They could be targeting other offences but 194/200 (97%) were "speeding", so it doesn't look like they were. uvox44, perhpas you can point out what is "rubbish", no one else seems to be able to? I and many others won't have any confidence in Dorset Police, whatever they do, until they properly answer some of the legitimate concerns that have been put to them instead of hiding from them.[/p][/quote]Your entire web site is rubbish so that's two of us. breamoreboy
  • Score: -5

3:20pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

gonzo123 wrote:
Speeding is fun.
Just fantastic. I really wish I had the job of knocking on a door at midnight and telling the occupants that their child has been killed by a speeding motorist.
[quote][p][bold]gonzo123[/bold] wrote: Speeding is fun.[/p][/quote]Just fantastic. I really wish I had the job of knocking on a door at midnight and telling the occupants that their child has been killed by a speeding motorist. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

3:22pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
uvox44 wrote:
dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police!
The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police
Which are excellent as they keep my taxes down. Frankly I couldn't care less how they do it. Squealing, bleating motorists, I just love 'em.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] wrote: dorsetspeed i wish you will in your fantasy obession- and it is you know. back in the real world- well done Dorset Police![/p][/quote]The only fantasy in all of this is the excuses given to justify the greed on green camera and the course cost figures given by Dorset police[/p][/quote]Which are excellent as they keep my taxes down. Frankly I couldn't care less how they do it. Squealing, bleating motorists, I just love 'em. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

3:30pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything?
Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else.

You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't.

I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts.

Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.
It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption?
I'd give up if I were you me old son, you can't have a sensible conversation with people such as Dead Stupid. He's so thick he's fired off all his ammo in public. With all the allegations stating that the Police are corrupt there's no case for any criminal or civil trial as it's already been held in public here.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything? Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else. You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't. I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts. Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.[/p][/quote]It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption?[/p][/quote]I'd give up if I were you me old son, you can't have a sensible conversation with people such as Dead Stupid. He's so thick he's fired off all his ammo in public. With all the allegations stating that the Police are corrupt there's no case for any criminal or civil trial as it's already been held in public here. breamoreboy
  • Score: -7

6:31pm Sun 31 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right.

Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that?
Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right. Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

7:14pm Sun 31 Aug 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right.

Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that?
Such a shame that people with no brain cells such as yourself are allowed to spout their crap on here and get away with it. I sincerely hope that Dorset Police take you to the cleaners. Not that that should be too difficult.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right. Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that?[/p][/quote]Such a shame that people with no brain cells such as yourself are allowed to spout their crap on here and get away with it. I sincerely hope that Dorset Police take you to the cleaners. Not that that should be too difficult. breamoreboy
  • Score: -7

8:28pm Sun 31 Aug 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right.

Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that?
Such a shame that people with no brain cells such as yourself are allowed to spout their crap on here and get away with it. I sincerely hope that Dorset Police take you to the cleaners. Not that that should be too difficult.
As much as I would love them to try, it will never happen. When I met recently with Martyn Underhill, James Vaughan, and Nicky Searle, I met 3 people who were scared of the truth, in denial, and completely out of their depth and they new it and the facts prove it.

Are you able to detail a single point I have every made which is "crap", and explain why you believe it to be "crap", sorry to use an obscene word but perhaps this is the only way to communicate with you?
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right. Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that?[/p][/quote]Such a shame that people with no brain cells such as yourself are allowed to spout their crap on here and get away with it. I sincerely hope that Dorset Police take you to the cleaners. Not that that should be too difficult.[/p][/quote]As much as I would love them to try, it will never happen. When I met recently with Martyn Underhill, James Vaughan, and Nicky Searle, I met 3 people who were scared of the truth, in denial, and completely out of their depth and they new it and the facts prove it. Are you able to detail a single point I have every made which is "crap", and explain why you believe it to be "crap", sorry to use an obscene word but perhaps this is the only way to communicate with you? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 8

10:22pm Sun 31 Aug 14

uvox44 says...

here is Dorsetspeed with his "watertight" case of corruption yet he seems unable to get anyone prosecuted despite having all the "unarguable" facts - tis almost (literally) unbelievable!
here is Dorsetspeed with his "watertight" case of corruption yet he seems unable to get anyone prosecuted despite having all the "unarguable" facts - tis almost (literally) unbelievable! uvox44
  • Score: -4

10:41pm Sun 31 Aug 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything?
Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else.

You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't.

I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts.

Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.
It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption?
It is only corruption when individuals influence operations in a direction which will personally benefit themselves, while (dishonestly) trying to give the impression that those decisions have been made for a different reason, in order to try to deflect attention.

I doubt that there are any such motivations in parking enforcement, not as blatant anyway, as there are in speed enforcement where if the money doesn't come in the "partnership" will close and the senior partnership decision makers will be out of work.
So council parking enforcement is only slightly corrupt then. I expect they'll be pleased about that pronouncement.

One police target for speed enforcement must be to get drivers to stick to the limit. If they succeed in doing that then there will be no more penalty income coming in. Where is the corruption there as they will really be doing themselves out of a job.....
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: If I'm "morally corrupt" there should be errors in things I have written, lies, etc. Can you detail anything? Turning discussions around? I did not say it was simply a matter of police corruption. I said there were 2 issues, 1 is motorists speeding which is not good, (but by the way the dft recognise that where there is poor compliance the correct solution may be to increase the limit, enforcement should be used a a last resort). How can this guidance work properly if the jobs of the partnership staff are related to enforcement income? I take it tbpoole you are quite happy with this blatant conflict of interest which wouldn't be allowed anywhere else. You seem to think that the police should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it involves a driver doing 57MPH. I don't. I have time and time again pointed out the signs of corruption in Dorset Police and absolutely no-one, not even you, can argue against these facts. Yes there are laws and rules of the road, and drivers should not break them, but there are also laws and rules for policing, and the police obviously should not break them. And Dorset Police are.[/p][/quote]It 'Wouldn't be allowed anywhere else' them? So councils shouldn't enforce cars overstaying in car parks or abusing any yellow lines, because if even a penny of these penalties goes towards staffing costs then it's quite blatantly corruption?[/p][/quote]It is only corruption when individuals influence operations in a direction which will personally benefit themselves, while (dishonestly) trying to give the impression that those decisions have been made for a different reason, in order to try to deflect attention. I doubt that there are any such motivations in parking enforcement, not as blatant anyway, as there are in speed enforcement where if the money doesn't come in the "partnership" will close and the senior partnership decision makers will be out of work.[/p][/quote]So council parking enforcement is only slightly corrupt then. I expect they'll be pleased about that pronouncement. One police target for speed enforcement must be to get drivers to stick to the limit. If they succeed in doing that then there will be no more penalty income coming in. Where is the corruption there as they will really be doing themselves out of a job..... tbpoole
  • Score: -2

8:17am Mon 1 Sep 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right.

Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that?
Such a shame that people with no brain cells such as yourself are allowed to spout their crap on here and get away with it. I sincerely hope that Dorset Police take you to the cleaners. Not that that should be too difficult.
As much as I would love them to try, it will never happen. When I met recently with Martyn Underhill, James Vaughan, and Nicky Searle, I met 3 people who were scared of the truth, in denial, and completely out of their depth and they new it and the facts prove it.

Are you able to detail a single point I have every made which is "crap", and explain why you believe it to be "crap", sorry to use an obscene word but perhaps this is the only way to communicate with you?
I've already said thicko that because you've made statements here and presumably other places without using the word "allegedly" every time, there's no way anything could get to trial as everything is already in the public domain. You've done a wonderful job of setting yourself up. The coppers must be laughing their socks off having to *NOT* deal with you as there now cannot be a case to answer.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Such a shame when some seem to need to resort to bad language and personal insult to try to make their points. There should be civil or criminal trials but I would be happy with Dorset Police recognizing their failures and putting things right. Does seem strange that some seem to think driving at 35 in a 30 is so bad that the police should be able to do what they want, lawful or unlawful. Where is the consistency in that?[/p][/quote]Such a shame that people with no brain cells such as yourself are allowed to spout their crap on here and get away with it. I sincerely hope that Dorset Police take you to the cleaners. Not that that should be too difficult.[/p][/quote]As much as I would love them to try, it will never happen. When I met recently with Martyn Underhill, James Vaughan, and Nicky Searle, I met 3 people who were scared of the truth, in denial, and completely out of their depth and they new it and the facts prove it. Are you able to detail a single point I have every made which is "crap", and explain why you believe it to be "crap", sorry to use an obscene word but perhaps this is the only way to communicate with you?[/p][/quote]I've already said thicko that because you've made statements here and presumably other places without using the word "allegedly" every time, there's no way anything could get to trial as everything is already in the public domain. You've done a wonderful job of setting yourself up. The coppers must be laughing their socks off having to *NOT* deal with you as there now cannot be a case to answer. breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

9:50am Mon 1 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

Why does everyone suddenly think that prosecution is my only target? It isn't. I am exposing bad and dishonest practices in Dorset police, which DO exist, in the hope of improving standards and therefore reducing road deaths and serious injuries. I have already succeeded in having 2 money making scams ended, the greed on green camera and the repeat course offer after 6 months. It also looks like I have prevented dangerous and money making mobile camera placements on the Dorset way. I have probably removed £millions from the fuel that feeds these dishonest selfish and dangerous activities. I'm pretty pleased about that but there is plenty more to do before we have honest and competent policing in Dorset
Why does everyone suddenly think that prosecution is my only target? It isn't. I am exposing bad and dishonest practices in Dorset police, which DO exist, in the hope of improving standards and therefore reducing road deaths and serious injuries. I have already succeeded in having 2 money making scams ended, the greed on green camera and the repeat course offer after 6 months. It also looks like I have prevented dangerous and money making mobile camera placements on the Dorset way. I have probably removed £millions from the fuel that feeds these dishonest selfish and dangerous activities. I'm pretty pleased about that but there is plenty more to do before we have honest and competent policing in Dorset dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

10:01am Mon 1 Sep 14

retry69 says...

Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you !
Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you ! retry69
  • Score: 0

10:06am Mon 1 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

retry69 wrote:
Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you !
Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you ![/p][/quote]Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can dorsetspeed
  • Score: -3

10:18am Mon 1 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans.

If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen
Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans. If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

10:57am Mon 1 Sep 14

retry69 says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you !
Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can
I haven't got four days spare but thanks for the offer :)
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you ![/p][/quote]Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can[/p][/quote]I haven't got four days spare but thanks for the offer :) retry69
  • Score: -2

11:02am Mon 1 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

retry69 wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you !
Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can
I haven't got four days spare but thanks for the offer :)
Just give me one example?
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you ![/p][/quote]Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can[/p][/quote]I haven't got four days spare but thanks for the offer :)[/p][/quote]Just give me one example? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

12:54pm Mon 1 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans. If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen
Oh, so I see you even know what the Police want. They want speeding. Fact.

And the only point of the no excuse enforcement is to encourage speeding then?

Actually the CCTV vans haven't been banned, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans. If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen[/p][/quote]Oh, so I see you even know what the Police want. They want speeding. Fact. And the only point of the no excuse enforcement is to encourage speeding then? Actually the CCTV vans haven't been banned, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite. tbpoole
  • Score: -4

3:11pm Mon 1 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans. If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen
Oh, so I see you even know what the Police want. They want speeding. Fact.

And the only point of the no excuse enforcement is to encourage speeding then?

Actually the CCTV vans haven't been banned, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite.
Are you really suggesting that those who have built careers, empires and £million industries by abusing the law do not want the thing that allows it all to work to continue?

Someone (we are not sure who) within Dorset Police reduced the course repeat time from 3 years to 6 months, against guidance and without there being any evidence of proper process. That decision would primarily have:

1. Massively increased course profits and their own job security
2. Allowed a driver to be caught speeding 4 times in 2 years and have a completely clean licence!!! When otherwise, that driver, perhaps quite rightly, should have been banned.

So yes, this is clear evidence of the police making decisions they did not want recorded which would INCREASE the amount of speeding going on.

I didn't say CCTV vans had been banned. I repeat my request to you to detail anything I have ever written which is incorrect.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans. If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen[/p][/quote]Oh, so I see you even know what the Police want. They want speeding. Fact. And the only point of the no excuse enforcement is to encourage speeding then? Actually the CCTV vans haven't been banned, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite.[/p][/quote]Are you really suggesting that those who have built careers, empires and £million industries by abusing the law do not want the thing that allows it all to work to continue? Someone (we are not sure who) within Dorset Police reduced the course repeat time from 3 years to 6 months, against guidance and without there being any evidence of proper process. That decision would primarily have: 1. Massively increased course profits and their own job security 2. Allowed a driver to be caught speeding 4 times in 2 years and have a completely clean licence!!! When otherwise, that driver, perhaps quite rightly, should have been banned. So yes, this is clear evidence of the police making decisions they did not want recorded which would INCREASE the amount of speeding going on. I didn't say CCTV vans had been banned. I repeat my request to you to detail anything I have ever written which is incorrect. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

7:09pm Mon 1 Sep 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you !
Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can
It was you or one of your pals who claimed that the biker who tragically died at the Cooper Dean had been executed by Dorset Police. What rubbish, he panicked, lost control of the bike and sadly crashed, end of story to the vast majority of people bar you.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you ![/p][/quote]Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can[/p][/quote]It was you or one of your pals who claimed that the biker who tragically died at the Cooper Dean had been executed by Dorset Police. What rubbish, he panicked, lost control of the bike and sadly crashed, end of story to the vast majority of people bar you. breamoreboy
  • Score: -7

7:11pm Mon 1 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans. If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen
Oh, so I see you even know what the Police want. They want speeding. Fact.

And the only point of the no excuse enforcement is to encourage speeding then?

Actually the CCTV vans haven't been banned, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite.
Are you really suggesting that those who have built careers, empires and £million industries by abusing the law do not want the thing that allows it all to work to continue?

Someone (we are not sure who) within Dorset Police reduced the course repeat time from 3 years to 6 months, against guidance and without there being any evidence of proper process. That decision would primarily have:

1. Massively increased course profits and their own job security
2. Allowed a driver to be caught speeding 4 times in 2 years and have a completely clean licence!!! When otherwise, that driver, perhaps quite rightly, should have been banned.

So yes, this is clear evidence of the police making decisions they did not want recorded which would INCREASE the amount of speeding going on.

I didn't say CCTV vans had been banned. I repeat my request to you to detail anything I have ever written which is incorrect.
"Are you really suggesting that those who have built careers, empires and £million industries by abusing the law do not want the thing that allows it all to work to continue?"

No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero. The police aren't forcing drivers to speed, are they?

And it's only your assertion that they are "abusing the law". Pray tell me exactly WHICH law you think they are abusing?

I think it's quite funny that you demand everyone in Dorset Police is squeaky clean (and it is only you saying they are not) and yet blindly defend the "poor victimised motorists" who are actually breaking criminal law in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Tbpoole, even Eric pickles was talking about councils filling their coffers from parking enforcement as being illegal and needing to ban their cctv vans. If the police wanted no speeding they would have installed average speed cameras all over the place or would be shouting for ISA etc. Of course the police want speeding but to be sustainable what they do has to have a balance to feed from it but still allow it to happen[/p][/quote]Oh, so I see you even know what the Police want. They want speeding. Fact. And the only point of the no excuse enforcement is to encourage speeding then? Actually the CCTV vans haven't been banned, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good sound bite.[/p][/quote]Are you really suggesting that those who have built careers, empires and £million industries by abusing the law do not want the thing that allows it all to work to continue? Someone (we are not sure who) within Dorset Police reduced the course repeat time from 3 years to 6 months, against guidance and without there being any evidence of proper process. That decision would primarily have: 1. Massively increased course profits and their own job security 2. Allowed a driver to be caught speeding 4 times in 2 years and have a completely clean licence!!! When otherwise, that driver, perhaps quite rightly, should have been banned. So yes, this is clear evidence of the police making decisions they did not want recorded which would INCREASE the amount of speeding going on. I didn't say CCTV vans had been banned. I repeat my request to you to detail anything I have ever written which is incorrect.[/p][/quote]"Are you really suggesting that those who have built careers, empires and £million industries by abusing the law do not want the thing that allows it all to work to continue?" No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero. The police aren't forcing drivers to speed, are they? And it's only your assertion that they are "abusing the law". Pray tell me exactly WHICH law you think they are abusing? I think it's quite funny that you demand everyone in Dorset Police is squeaky clean (and it is only you saying they are not) and yet blindly defend the "poor victimised motorists" who are actually breaking criminal law in the first place. tbpoole
  • Score: -6

7:21pm Mon 1 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you !
Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can
It was you or one of your pals who claimed that the biker who tragically died at the Cooper Dean had been executed by Dorset Police. What rubbish, he panicked, lost control of the bike and sadly crashed, end of story to the vast majority of people bar you.
You are one for exaggeration, aren't you. No one has said that anyone was executed by Dorset Police. I said that their operation was a factor in a death and it was. There were other factors, including speeding. Remove any one of the factors and the death would almost certainly not have happened.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Four days of complete self obsessed,self indulgent drivel from one poster and why? Because drivers exceeding the speed limit,endangering themselves and more importantly others where caught and dealt with.You couldn't make it up could you ![/p][/quote]Retry, perhaps you could point out anything I have ever said which doesn't make sense? No one else can[/p][/quote]It was you or one of your pals who claimed that the biker who tragically died at the Cooper Dean had been executed by Dorset Police. What rubbish, he panicked, lost control of the bike and sadly crashed, end of story to the vast majority of people bar you.[/p][/quote]You are one for exaggeration, aren't you. No one has said that anyone was executed by Dorset Police. I said that their operation was a factor in a death and it was. There were other factors, including speeding. Remove any one of the factors and the death would almost certainly not have happened. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

7:31pm Mon 1 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

"No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero."

No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this.

As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption.

Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30.

I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts.

You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole
"No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero." No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this. As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption. Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30. I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts. You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole dorsetspeed
  • Score: 7

7:35am Tue 2 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
"No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero."

No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this.

As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption.

Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30.

I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts.

You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole
And you have it have the last word.........

What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance; please enlighten me. How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Who would enforce it? Who would issue tickets?

What is your business model that avoids any chance of "corruption"?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero." No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this. As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption. Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30. I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts. You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole[/p][/quote]And you have it have the last word......... What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance; please enlighten me. How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Who would enforce it? Who would issue tickets? What is your business model that avoids any chance of "corruption"? tbpoole
  • Score: -1

8:40am Tue 2 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
"No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero."

No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this.

As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption.

Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30.

I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts.

You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole
And you have it have the last word.........

What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance; please enlighten me. How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Who would enforce it? Who would issue tickets?

What is your business model that avoids any chance of "corruption"?
Circles, tbpoole. I already said, average speed cameras, for one, or asking for newer technologies, ISA, etc. Or even just listening to the guidance that is out there, instead of turning a blind eye to it as Dorset Police did to maximize course throughput by allowing retakes every 6 months (and therefore allowing repeat speeders to stay on the road), such as https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/63975/
circular-01-2013.pdf
, see point 26.

The first thing you do to avoid corruption is to look for conflicts of interest, and either eliminate them or if this is not possible, acknowledge them and demonstrate that they are under control. Not what Dorset Police do - maximise the benefit and for example, avoid for 3 and a half years providing proper financial clarity about figures which are clearly massively inflated, or to lie about the reasons for their most profitable operations.

You avoid giving individuals difficult conflicts that mean that they have to make decisions about what they know to be best and what will keep them in work.

These are really basic things where Dorset Police have failed and are continuing to fail.

You clearly cannot do efficient safety work with the background Dorset Police have right now. The first step is to get back to basics and remove all of the dishonesty and inefficiency and put in a fresh team with the right skills and motivations. That team needs to review the objectives, resources and methods, and come up with a way forward which is completely open and honest and welcoming of public scrutiny and comment.

This is what we need, the challenge is not what needs to be done with road safety, it is how to shut down the current corrupt, self interested regime to allow the best future to take shape.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero." No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this. As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption. Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30. I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts. You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole[/p][/quote]And you have it have the last word......... What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance; please enlighten me. How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Who would enforce it? Who would issue tickets? What is your business model that avoids any chance of "corruption"?[/p][/quote]Circles, tbpoole. I already said, average speed cameras, for one, or asking for newer technologies, ISA, etc. Or even just listening to the guidance that is out there, instead of turning a blind eye to it as Dorset Police did to maximize course throughput by allowing retakes every 6 months (and therefore allowing repeat speeders to stay on the road), such as https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/63975/ circular-01-2013.pdf , see point 26. The first thing you do to avoid corruption is to look for conflicts of interest, and either eliminate them or if this is not possible, acknowledge them and demonstrate that they are under control. Not what Dorset Police do - maximise the benefit and for example, avoid for 3 and a half years providing proper financial clarity about figures which are clearly massively inflated, or to lie about the reasons for their most profitable operations. You avoid giving individuals difficult conflicts that mean that they have to make decisions about what they know to be best and what will keep them in work. These are really basic things where Dorset Police have failed and are continuing to fail. You clearly cannot do efficient safety work with the background Dorset Police have right now. The first step is to get back to basics and remove all of the dishonesty and inefficiency and put in a fresh team with the right skills and motivations. That team needs to review the objectives, resources and methods, and come up with a way forward which is completely open and honest and welcoming of public scrutiny and comment. This is what we need, the challenge is not what needs to be done with road safety, it is how to shut down the current corrupt, self interested regime to allow the best future to take shape. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

12:40pm Tue 2 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: "No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero." No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this. As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption. Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30. I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts. You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole
And you have it have the last word......... What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance; please enlighten me. How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Who would enforce it? Who would issue tickets? What is your business model that avoids any chance of "corruption"?
Circles, tbpoole. I already said, average speed cameras, for one, or asking for newer technologies, ISA, etc. Or even just listening to the guidance that is out there, instead of turning a blind eye to it as Dorset Police did to maximize course throughput by allowing retakes every 6 months (and therefore allowing repeat speeders to stay on the road), such as https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/63975/ circular-01-2013.pdf , see point 26. The first thing you do to avoid corruption is to look for conflicts of interest, and either eliminate them or if this is not possible, acknowledge them and demonstrate that they are under control. Not what Dorset Police do - maximise the benefit and for example, avoid for 3 and a half years providing proper financial clarity about figures which are clearly massively inflated, or to lie about the reasons for their most profitable operations. You avoid giving individuals difficult conflicts that mean that they have to make decisions about what they know to be best and what will keep them in work. These are really basic things where Dorset Police have failed and are continuing to fail. You clearly cannot do efficient safety work with the background Dorset Police have right now. The first step is to get back to basics and remove all of the dishonesty and inefficiency and put in a fresh team with the right skills and motivations. That team needs to review the objectives, resources and methods, and come up with a way forward which is completely open and honest and welcoming of public scrutiny and comment. This is what we need, the challenge is not what needs to be done with road safety, it is how to shut down the current corrupt, self interested regime to allow the best future to take shape.
Circles. Just what I expected. Waffle, not substance. No concrete proposals. Typical of dorsetspleen.

ISA is something that has to be done nationally, by motor manufacturers. Nothing to do with Dorset or any other police force come to that. I would imagine there would be a lot of resistance to this from the majority of drivers, rightly or wrongly.

I would imagine establishing a network of average speed cameras would be incredibly expensive - probably tens of millions to cover main routes in Dorset alone. Who stumps up the money for this in the first place? Certainly not the government with their increasing budget cuts.

Assuming you could manage to get a system in place (and find one exists currently) you need to both cover ongoing running costs and recover establishment costs. The only way to do this is by issuing tickets to drivers, presumably.

Unless you are suggesting the whole system runs at a massive loss and ther people who run it are regularly sacked to avoid conflicts of interest, then it will need to be issuing tens of thousands of tickets each and every year. Otherwise what is the purpose/ incentive to install this system?

Hardly any different to the existing way of working, by the sound of it, unless you have some magic solution?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "No I'm saying the aim is to get speed limit compliance, in which case the fine income would be zero." No, the aim is to make money. As I have said, if they wanted speed limit compliance there are better ways to do this. As I have also said, it is against the law to use the law for personal benefit and lie about the reasons you do things and to mislead about finances etc. , this is corruption. Corruption is considered by most to be more serious than doing 35 in a 30. I am not commenting on motorists, I simply want my police force to be honest and efficient not least because this is likely to result in lower KSI counts. You are starting to go round in circles again, tbpoole[/p][/quote]And you have it have the last word......... What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance; please enlighten me. How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Who would enforce it? Who would issue tickets? What is your business model that avoids any chance of "corruption"?[/p][/quote]Circles, tbpoole. I already said, average speed cameras, for one, or asking for newer technologies, ISA, etc. Or even just listening to the guidance that is out there, instead of turning a blind eye to it as Dorset Police did to maximize course throughput by allowing retakes every 6 months (and therefore allowing repeat speeders to stay on the road), such as https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/63975/ circular-01-2013.pdf , see point 26. The first thing you do to avoid corruption is to look for conflicts of interest, and either eliminate them or if this is not possible, acknowledge them and demonstrate that they are under control. Not what Dorset Police do - maximise the benefit and for example, avoid for 3 and a half years providing proper financial clarity about figures which are clearly massively inflated, or to lie about the reasons for their most profitable operations. You avoid giving individuals difficult conflicts that mean that they have to make decisions about what they know to be best and what will keep them in work. These are really basic things where Dorset Police have failed and are continuing to fail. You clearly cannot do efficient safety work with the background Dorset Police have right now. The first step is to get back to basics and remove all of the dishonesty and inefficiency and put in a fresh team with the right skills and motivations. That team needs to review the objectives, resources and methods, and come up with a way forward which is completely open and honest and welcoming of public scrutiny and comment. This is what we need, the challenge is not what needs to be done with road safety, it is how to shut down the current corrupt, self interested regime to allow the best future to take shape.[/p][/quote]Circles. Just what I expected. Waffle, not substance. No concrete proposals. Typical of dorsetspleen. ISA is something that has to be done nationally, by motor manufacturers. Nothing to do with Dorset or any other police force come to that. I would imagine there would be a lot of resistance to this from the majority of drivers, rightly or wrongly. I would imagine establishing a network of average speed cameras would be incredibly expensive - probably tens of millions to cover main routes in Dorset alone. Who stumps up the money for this in the first place? Certainly not the government with their increasing budget cuts. Assuming you could manage to get a system in place (and find one exists currently) you need to both cover ongoing running costs and recover establishment costs. The only way to do this is by issuing tickets to drivers, presumably. Unless you are suggesting the whole system runs at a massive loss and ther people who run it are regularly sacked to avoid conflicts of interest, then it will need to be issuing tens of thousands of tickets each and every year. Otherwise what is the purpose/ incentive to install this system? Hardly any different to the existing way of working, by the sound of it, unless you have some magic solution? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Tue 2 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance".

If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens.

You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year.

There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!!

They seem to have more money than they know what to do with.

Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go.

But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.
I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

2:18pm Tue 2 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.
Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.[/p][/quote]Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

3:07pm Tue 2 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.
Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.
I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.[/p][/quote]Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.[/p][/quote]I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........ dorsetspeed
  • Score: 7

4:39pm Tue 2 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.
Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.
I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........
Honest, proper policing ?????

Just vague meaningless jargon open to so many interpretations and subject to personal judgment. One of many similar pronouncements you have frequently made.

Why should I accept your version of what that might mean, if it actually means anything? What makes you such an expert?

I'd rather trust the way Dorset Police work than try anything you've ever suggested.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.[/p][/quote]Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.[/p][/quote]I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........[/p][/quote]Honest, proper policing ????? Just vague meaningless jargon open to so many interpretations and subject to personal judgment. One of many similar pronouncements you have frequently made. Why should I accept your version of what that might mean, if it actually means anything? What makes you such an expert? I'd rather trust the way Dorset Police work than try anything you've ever suggested. tbpoole
  • Score: -3

5:00pm Tue 2 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.
Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.
I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........
Honest, proper policing ?????

Just vague meaningless jargon open to so many interpretations and subject to personal judgment. One of many similar pronouncements you have frequently made.

Why should I accept your version of what that might mean, if it actually means anything? What makes you such an expert?

I'd rather trust the way Dorset Police work than try anything you've ever suggested.
I see, so you would prefer them to allow blatant personal conflicts of interest to take control. To set up £million pound operations, based on a lie, refuse to detail the facts and when forced out of them have to change their lie to something else. To set up dangerous mobile operations on the roads and in slip roads causing obstruction and hazard to themselves and others to make money. To refuse to communicate with the public. To inflate claimed costs to hide profit and to obstruct inquiries into those costs. To corrupt other organisations including the Information Commissioner and Information tribunal. To try to wriggle out of fraudulent operations by claiming they had nothing to do with them, it was the council, when they made all the money and published the lies in order to make it work. To claim entire casualty reductions as their own achievements when what is observed clearly has other factors. To support Councillors, not road safety professionals, to lower limits far below even average speeds and then to target those roads instead of where there is a real speed issue. To put personal gain ahead of public safety. To obstruct and cover up when challenged about blatantly dishonest activities. I'm sure there's plenty more but this is what comes to my finger tips at this moment.

"proper honest policing" might be a bit vague if it was not accompanied by the facts that demonstrate that it is not. My expertise is in analysis, I have analysed Dorset Police and this is what I have found.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.[/p][/quote]Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.[/p][/quote]I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........[/p][/quote]Honest, proper policing ????? Just vague meaningless jargon open to so many interpretations and subject to personal judgment. One of many similar pronouncements you have frequently made. Why should I accept your version of what that might mean, if it actually means anything? What makes you such an expert? I'd rather trust the way Dorset Police work than try anything you've ever suggested.[/p][/quote]I see, so you would prefer them to allow blatant personal conflicts of interest to take control. To set up £million pound operations, based on a lie, refuse to detail the facts and when forced out of them have to change their lie to something else. To set up dangerous mobile operations on the roads and in slip roads causing obstruction and hazard to themselves and others to make money. To refuse to communicate with the public. To inflate claimed costs to hide profit and to obstruct inquiries into those costs. To corrupt other organisations including the Information Commissioner and Information tribunal. To try to wriggle out of fraudulent operations by claiming they had nothing to do with them, it was the council, when they made all the money and published the lies in order to make it work. To claim entire casualty reductions as their own achievements when what is observed clearly has other factors. To support Councillors, not road safety professionals, to lower limits far below even average speeds and then to target those roads instead of where there is a real speed issue. To put personal gain ahead of public safety. To obstruct and cover up when challenged about blatantly dishonest activities. I'm sure there's plenty more but this is what comes to my finger tips at this moment. "proper honest policing" might be a bit vague if it was not accompanied by the facts that demonstrate that it is not. My expertise is in analysis, I have analysed Dorset Police and this is what I have found. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 6

6:25am Wed 3 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.
Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.
I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........
Honest, proper policing ?????

Just vague meaningless jargon open to so many interpretations and subject to personal judgment. One of many similar pronouncements you have frequently made.

Why should I accept your version of what that might mean, if it actually means anything? What makes you such an expert?

I'd rather trust the way Dorset Police work than try anything you've ever suggested.
I see, so you would prefer them to allow blatant personal conflicts of interest to take control. To set up £million pound operations, based on a lie, refuse to detail the facts and when forced out of them have to change their lie to something else. To set up dangerous mobile operations on the roads and in slip roads causing obstruction and hazard to themselves and others to make money. To refuse to communicate with the public. To inflate claimed costs to hide profit and to obstruct inquiries into those costs. To corrupt other organisations including the Information Commissioner and Information tribunal. To try to wriggle out of fraudulent operations by claiming they had nothing to do with them, it was the council, when they made all the money and published the lies in order to make it work. To claim entire casualty reductions as their own achievements when what is observed clearly has other factors. To support Councillors, not road safety professionals, to lower limits far below even average speeds and then to target those roads instead of where there is a real speed issue. To put personal gain ahead of public safety. To obstruct and cover up when challenged about blatantly dishonest activities. I'm sure there's plenty more but this is what comes to my finger tips at this moment.

"proper honest policing" might be a bit vague if it was not accompanied by the facts that demonstrate that it is not. My expertise is in analysis, I have analysed Dorset Police and this is what I have found.
What a lot of piffle
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I did not say ISA or average speed cameras would be popular and I believe they would cause more trouble than they would prevent. I put it forward to answer your question "What better ways are there to ensure speed limit compliance". If I was a road safety professional and I strongly believed ISA was the way to go, or anything that gave 100% limit compliance, I would be doing everything I could to bring it forward, that's how change for the better happens. You could cover a few of the major routes with a very small number of average speed cameras, such as the A31 between Canford and Bere Regis where there seem to be a number of Dorset's deaths every year. There are large transport budgets available, such as the millions being spent removing traffic lanes, installing short sections of random bicycle lanes and pointless traffic lights, increasing congestion, pollution and costs for everyone. They even spent £6million on one roundabout!!! Dorset Police claim to have spent £500,000 on staff to run their course for 40 people!! They seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Anyway, the reality is, you get what you pay for. Doing something just because you can afford it (or even make money) is not a good way to go. But I repeat, the fundamental point is this: It's pointless discussing what we should do for road safety while the whole responsibility has been hijacked by corruption. That is why, with my passion to see competent and honest road safety work, the first brick wall to break down does not relate exactly to road safety, it relates to those who are preventing it.[/p][/quote]Smoke and mirrors dorsetspleen. Why suggest something you can't follow through with and then divert onto another topic? Instead of bleating about something you disagree with (easy to sit on the sidelines and do that) come up with thought through costed effective solutions please.[/p][/quote]I've done that countless times. Honest, proper policing. Targeting what does the most damage, not what makes the most money. Proper correctly motivated traffic cops on the road. Not allowing financial motivation determine policies. Recognizing and managing enforcement risks. Listening to the public. Demonstrating that operations have been optimised to best deliver that claimed objectives. Not lying about reasons for operations. Not lying about the finances. ........[/p][/quote]Honest, proper policing ????? Just vague meaningless jargon open to so many interpretations and subject to personal judgment. One of many similar pronouncements you have frequently made. Why should I accept your version of what that might mean, if it actually means anything? What makes you such an expert? I'd rather trust the way Dorset Police work than try anything you've ever suggested.[/p][/quote]I see, so you would prefer them to allow blatant personal conflicts of interest to take control. To set up £million pound operations, based on a lie, refuse to detail the facts and when forced out of them have to change their lie to something else. To set up dangerous mobile operations on the roads and in slip roads causing obstruction and hazard to themselves and others to make money. To refuse to communicate with the public. To inflate claimed costs to hide profit and to obstruct inquiries into those costs. To corrupt other organisations including the Information Commissioner and Information tribunal. To try to wriggle out of fraudulent operations by claiming they had nothing to do with them, it was the council, when they made all the money and published the lies in order to make it work. To claim entire casualty reductions as their own achievements when what is observed clearly has other factors. To support Councillors, not road safety professionals, to lower limits far below even average speeds and then to target those roads instead of where there is a real speed issue. To put personal gain ahead of public safety. To obstruct and cover up when challenged about blatantly dishonest activities. I'm sure there's plenty more but this is what comes to my finger tips at this moment. "proper honest policing" might be a bit vague if it was not accompanied by the facts that demonstrate that it is not. My expertise is in analysis, I have analysed Dorset Police and this is what I have found.[/p][/quote]What a lot of piffle tbpoole
  • Score: -2

9:39am Wed 3 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org.
uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned.

Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing.

Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names.
No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org. uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned. Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing. Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 5

12:16pm Wed 3 Sep 14

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org. uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned. Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing. Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names.
I don't need to reply I just know it's all piffle.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org. uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned. Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing. Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names.[/p][/quote]I don't need to reply I just know it's all piffle. tbpoole
  • Score: -2

2:22pm Wed 3 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, you should work for dorset police, if you don't already, you would fit in great
tbpoole, you should work for dorset police, if you don't already, you would fit in great dorsetspeed
  • Score: 3

3:34pm Wed 3 Sep 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org.

uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned.

Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing.

Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names.
Well that's alright then, everybody knows that everything on a web site is without doubt correct. However do I detect a slight conflict of interest in that said web site seems very similar to your user name here, or is that just plain old fashioned coincidence?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org. uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned. Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing. Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names.[/p][/quote]Well that's alright then, everybody knows that everything on a web site is without doubt correct. However do I detect a slight conflict of interest in that said web site seems very similar to your user name here, or is that just plain old fashioned coincidence? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Wed 3 Sep 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org.


uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned.

Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing.

Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names.
Well that's alright then, everybody knows that everything on a web site is without doubt correct. However do I detect a slight conflict of interest in that said web site seems very similar to your user name here, or is that just plain old fashioned coincidence?
No, I thought you knew, that is my website, that is why I know the information on it is correct, unless of course you can spot anything incorrect and then I will correct it.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: No, tbpoole, fact not piffle, and all the evidence is at www.dorsetspeed.org. uk. I forgot to mention changing the course acceptance criteria against guidance and without any proper process or control with the results that persistent speeders can contribute to the money that pays their wages repeatedly, and that persistent speeders can stay on the road instead of building up points and getting banned. Any one of these things would be bad enough but together it explains why step 1 is simply to ask for proper honest policing. Of course, as always, if you can provide any proper challenge to anything I have written I would be delighted to see it. But that does mean producing counter evidence or explanation, not just writing "piffle" or calling me silly names.[/p][/quote]Well that's alright then, everybody knows that everything on a web site is without doubt correct. However do I detect a slight conflict of interest in that said web site seems very similar to your user name here, or is that just plain old fashioned coincidence?[/p][/quote]No, I thought you knew, that is my website, that is why I know the information on it is correct, unless of course you can spot anything incorrect and then I will correct it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Top_Gear says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Top_Gear wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.
I wasn't aware that any of our roads had fast lanes on them, I thought on motorways they should be called overtaking lanes. Then if I'm correct the name Top_Gear probably sums things up, assuming it refers to that absolutely appalling farce on TV.
Yeah mate, I'm Jeremy Clarkson.
So when conversing, y'know I reallife, you actually refer to them as 'Overtaking Lanes'?...

...Yeah, right!
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.[/p][/quote]I wasn't aware that any of our roads had fast lanes on them, I thought on motorways they should be called overtaking lanes. Then if I'm correct the name Top_Gear probably sums things up, assuming it refers to that absolutely appalling farce on TV.[/p][/quote]Yeah mate, I'm Jeremy Clarkson. So when conversing, y'know I reallife, you actually refer to them as 'Overtaking Lanes'?... ...Yeah, right! Top_Gear
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Fri 5 Sep 14

Top_Gear says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Top_Gear wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.
Why are the majority likely to be travelling at 10 mph below the speed lmit - do they not have the capability to go faster if conditions permit?
Ah, I was stupidly referring to the Wessex Way and forgot it has both a 50mph and 70mph limit. I was referring to 50mph.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.[/p][/quote]Why are the majority likely to be travelling at 10 mph below the speed lmit - do they not have the capability to go faster if conditions permit?[/p][/quote]Ah, I was stupidly referring to the Wessex Way and forgot it has both a 50mph and 70mph limit. I was referring to 50mph. Top_Gear
  • Score: 0

8:08am Sat 6 Sep 14

rusty2009 says...

Top_Gear wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Top_Gear wrote:
Stereotyped wrote:
rusty2009 wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .
Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.
80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.
Why are the majority likely to be travelling at 10 mph below the speed lmit - do they not have the capability to go faster if conditions permit?
Ah, I was stupidly referring to the Wessex Way and forgot it has both a 50mph and 70mph limit. I was referring to 50mph.
The Wessex way has 40,50,70 Limit.
[quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Top_Gear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stereotyped[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty2009[/bold] wrote: To be fair if everyone read the road used there mirrors and indicators you could quite safely have higher speed limits. But people are not taught properly these days, I think everyone should have to take there lessons and tests in a HGV (LGV) it would tech them a-lot more .[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Speeding, although it is an offence, can be safe. Obviously doing the likes of 60mph down your local high street is not acceptable, but I'd say 80mph on a dual carriageway is quite safe I modern times. Cars are a lot safer now, with far superior brakes than early times. The real problem is driving standards. A car travelling at he speed limit of 70mph by someone with poor eyesight, slow reaction, hogging the middle lane in their little bubble oblivious to what is going on around them is more dangerous than a car driven at 80mph by someone who is actually competent at driving.[/p][/quote]80mph on a dual carriageway is safe? The majority of drivers (in the fast line) travel at around 60mph max. Going ~20mph faster than everyone else is not safe when there are only 2 lanes available. Can please I get a description of your car and licence plate so I know who to avoid? Thank you.[/p][/quote]Why are the majority likely to be travelling at 10 mph below the speed lmit - do they not have the capability to go faster if conditions permit?[/p][/quote]Ah, I was stupidly referring to the Wessex Way and forgot it has both a 50mph and 70mph limit. I was referring to 50mph.[/p][/quote]The Wessex way has 40,50,70 Limit. rusty2009
  • 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.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree