Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Daily Echo on FacebookAll of today's content from across the site, all in one place at bournemouthecho.co.uk/today
Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers
8:50am Friday 10th September 2010 in
FIVE areas in Bournemouth and Poole have been named speeding conviction hotspots with drivers from the resorts’ most affluent areas caught flouting the law most.
Nearly one in four motorists living on Poole’s exclusive Sandbanks peninsula, one of the world’s most expensive pieces of real estate, has had a speeding conviction in the past five years.
The Westbourne area of Bournemouth ranks fourth in the speeding conviction league while Lilliput in Poole is in seventh position.
Winton in Bournemouth was placed 15th in the list with motorists from the resort’s West Cliff area 20th worst for amassing speeding fines and penalty points on their licence.
The statistics emerged following a survey by car insurance company Admiral and calls to pull the plug on funding for speed cameras in Bournemouth, except for red light and mobile devices.
Top speeding hotspots
1. Radlett, Hertfordshire (25.7%)
2. Sandbanks, Poole, Dorset (24.2%)
3. Leatherhead, Surrey (23.1%)
4. Westbourne, Bournemouth, Dorset (22.9%)
5. Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire (22.1%)
6. Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire (21.9%)
7. Lilliput, Poole, Dorset (21.2%)
8. Bushey, Hertfordshire (21.1%)
9. Salisbury, Wiltshire (20.3%)
10. Worcester (20.3%)
In contrast, St Ives in Cornwall appears to be the most law-abiding area with only 5.5 per cent of drivers having had a speeding conviction in the last five years. Small Heath in Birmingham was second on the “coldspot” list.
Admiral also found that 87 per cent of drivers admitted breaking the speed limit and more than 10 per cent had a speed conviction on their licence.
Managing director Sue Longthorn said: “Our statistics show a worrying trend that people see a speed limit as simply a guide rather than a speed that’s appropriate for that road. It’s a wonder that the national average for speeding convictions isn’t higher, given this fact.”
Dorset Road Safe’s head of fixed penalties Johnny Stephens said: “We would like to remind the public that we all have a part to play in ensuring that roads are safe for everyone.”
There are many theories why drivers living in the millionaires’ haven of Sandbanks accumulate so many speeding convictions.
The trappings of a millionaire lifestyle include fast cars which perhaps make observing a 30mph speed limit more difficult.
A £60 fine is maybe not such a deterrent if you’re well heeled and another theory is that areas like Sandbanks, Westbourne, Lilliput and the West Cliff area are home to a high number of elderly drivers.
Terry Stewart, president of the Sandbanks residents’ association, said he felt the area’s long straight roads could be to blame.
“There are a number of wide straight roads, like Canford Cliffs Road and Shore Road,” he said.
“Police quite often set up with handheld guns along them, as speeding is an issue often raised at safer neighbourhood meetings in Poole.
“The lowering of the speed limit from 50mph to 40mph on the Wessex Way has probably led to a number of convictions.”
Comments(94)
rayc
says...
9:11am Fri 10 Sep 10
Are they saying in the article that Sandbanks drivers get caught locally or could they have been driving anywhere in the UK?
Very poor reporting and investigation, informs of nothing and queries even less.
Dorset Road Safe’s head of fixed penalties Johnny Stephens said: “We would like to remind the public that we all have a part to play in ensuring that roads are safe for everyone.”
Pity his organisation has done the most to disenfranchise drivers from getting involved in road safety. The more he is quoted as their mouthpiece the more of a prig he appears.
westbourneman
says...
9:21am Fri 10 Sep 10
Are you telling me that there are more people speeding in Lilliput than on the M3 ?
Absolute tosh survey and very incorrect.
l'anglais
says...
9:22am Fri 10 Sep 10
People residing in affluent areas are more likely to own have faster cars. Some of those individuals don't necessarily posess the driving ability to control a high performance vehicule(more cash than sense) or the will (like to show off)to drive below the legal speed limit.
There are of course boy racers who live on West Howe & Turlin Moor, they will have to try a little harder.
Jim_Springbourne
says...
9:25am Fri 10 Sep 10
Chriswood
says...
9:30am Fri 10 Sep 10
Er, Terry, I think you should blame holding pedal to the metal!!
PokesdownMark
says...
9:31am Fri 10 Sep 10
So, are the roads of Cornwall less dangerous than Westbourne? If they are not we can confidently lay speed cameras to rest and focus on the actual causes of accidents. Plain old bad driving.
richfire
says...
9:33am Fri 10 Sep 10
The Liberal
says...
9:43am Fri 10 Sep 10
Frank2010
says...
9:44am Fri 10 Sep 10
rayc
says...
9:49am Fri 10 Sep 10
Does anybody really believe that statistic? How was Admirals survey conducted? Would a check of the electoral role, correlated with addresses of those with points on their licence, confirm this fact?
If it is true then where were they speeding? It may have nothing at all to do with exceeding the speed limit in Dorset at all.
Of course Insurance companies have been making a fortune from charging drivers more if they have points on their licence so they , like the Camera Partnerships, have a vested interest keeing camera enforcement. Behind all automatic enforcement money lurks, you only have to see how Siemens are jumping on the bandwagon, hoping their average speed cameras replace Gatso fixed ones.
uvox44
says...
9:52am Fri 10 Sep 10
drive within the speed limit and you'll soon have a queue of drivers behind you doing the same, some patiently, others not but that's their problem.If the tailgaters of this world think they can make me break the law on their behalf they are sadly mistaken!
so just say 1 in 10 drivers having the courage of their convictions and rigidly sticking to the limit is far more effective than all the police and cameras in the world! over to all you road-ragers and idiots who will now illogically tell me i'm the dangerous driver.....
West Howe Sean
says...
10:03am Fri 10 Sep 10
l'anglais wrote:I think you would find there are more boy racers living in Canford Cliffs.
I thinks the first two posters are splitting hairs.
People residing in affluent areas are more likely to own have faster cars. Some of those individuals don't necessarily posess the driving ability to control a high performance vehicule(more cash than sense) or the will (like to show off)to drive below the legal speed limit.
There are of course boy racers who live on West Howe & Turlin Moor, they will have to try a little harder.
The difference is that most drive newer cars and have more acceptable and successful appearance.
The reason that the more wealthy areas have a higher conviction rate is that they can afford to pay the occasional fine.
The effect of fines on poorer families is disproportionate. The end result is that families are punished for being poor.
Discuss
zagzig
says...
10:20am Fri 10 Sep 10
rainbowkisses
says...
10:22am Fri 10 Sep 10
PokesdownMark
says...
10:24am Fri 10 Sep 10
I would think that there are some pertinent data inside insurance companies on the degree of correlation between speed camera convictions and road collision involvement.
I wonder if our very own local motor insurance giant has a view?
black_knight
says...
10:25am Fri 10 Sep 10
Some of the poster on here think it is their right to speed.
fools the lot of em
Syd Poumen
says...
10:25am Fri 10 Sep 10
black_knight
says...
10:26am Fri 10 Sep 10
rainbowkisses wrote:Add up the number of speeders in Hertfordshire and then the number in Dorset
If Dorset tops the list (as the headline states) how come Radlett, Hertfordshire is number one? That's the Echo for you.
This will give you the answer the Echo is listing.
Please do maths in future, thats to modern generation for you, cannot solve logic
black_knight
says...
10:41am Fri 10 Sep 10
Not that hard to work our really
Perry_Winkle
says...
11:14am Fri 10 Sep 10
Discuss"
Maybe we should do what they do in Switzerland and relate the amount of the fine to ability to pay. Some poor so&so recently copped a £650,000 fine for speeding!
Perry_Winkle
says...
11:17am Fri 10 Sep 10
black_knight wrote:So the data is "Nearly one in four motorists living on Poole’s exclusive Sandbanks peninsula *that applied for an Admiral quote*" have a speeding conviction.
Common sense tells me they got this data when people apply for insurance as you have to declare this information during a standard qoute procedure. Not that hard to work our really
Hardly representative...
l'anglais
says...
11:24am Fri 10 Sep 10
West Howe Sean wrote:My point wasn't where someone lives, more the ability of their driving.
l'anglais wrote:I think you would find there are more boy racers living in Canford Cliffs.
I thinks the first two posters are splitting hairs.
People residing in affluent areas are more likely to own have faster cars. Some of those individuals don't necessarily posess the driving ability to control a high performance vehicule(more cash than sense) or the will (like to show off)to drive below the legal speed limit.
There are of course boy racers who live on West Howe & Turlin Moor, they will have to try a little harder.
The difference is that most drive newer cars and have more acceptable and successful appearance.
The reason that the more wealthy areas have a higher conviction rate is that they can afford to pay the occasional fine.
The effect of fines on poorer families is disproportionate. The end result is that families are punished for being poor.
Discuss
Someone owning a Porsche on West Howe is more likely to commit a speeding offense than someone driving a Renault Clio living in Sandbanks.
The people living in the "rich" areas own faster cars. So are more likely to break the speed limits.
black_knight
says...
11:24am Fri 10 Sep 10
Perry_Winkle wrote:But interesting all the same
black_knight wrote: Common sense tells me they got this data when people apply for insurance as you have to declare this information during a standard qoute procedure. Not that hard to work our reallySo the data is "Nearly one in four motorists living on Poole’s exclusive Sandbanks peninsula *that applied for an Admiral quote*" have a speeding conviction. Hardly representative...
TinyLegacy
says...
12:09pm Fri 10 Sep 10
fabiostn
says...
12:54pm Fri 10 Sep 10
MartiB
says...
1:06pm Fri 10 Sep 10
1. Don't care because they can easily afford the fine.
2. Think that because they are well off that they think that they are better than others and should have sole rights to the road and above the law.
I have an easy approach, I treat others how they treat me. If you are courteous to me, I will be courteous to you. I don't care how much money you have, how flash your car is, where you live or who you know you have the same rights on the road as anyone else.
You can tailgate me and flash your lights, but it won't make me go faster, in fact I may slow down.
The only people that I get out the way for are those with flashing blue lights or green lights ;)
MartiB
says...
1:09pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Sums it up really ;)
The Liberal
says...
1:25pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Perry_Winkle wrote:Ah, but Admiral own confused.com. So if data from the latter was included, it could be very representative indeed.
black_knight wrote:So the data is "Nearly one in four motorists living on Poole’s exclusive Sandbanks peninsula *that applied for an Admiral quote*" have a speeding conviction.
Common sense tells me they got this data when people apply for insurance as you have to declare this information during a standard qoute procedure. Not that hard to work our really
Hardly representative...
traindriver3ss
says...
2:02pm Fri 10 Sep 10
West Howe Sean wrote:you are correct Sean! even the very modest fixed penalty is mere pocket change to some in our society but to someone on minimum wage it is a huge chunk of income! Sadly although the courts do indeed base fines on income there seems to be an upper ceiling for the affluent after which no matter how insignificant the fine wont rise!!!
l'anglais wrote:I think you would find there are more boy racers living in Canford Cliffs.
I thinks the first two posters are splitting hairs.
People residing in affluent areas are more likely to own have faster cars. Some of those individuals don't necessarily posess the driving ability to control a high performance vehicule(more cash than sense) or the will (like to show off)to drive below the legal speed limit.
There are of course boy racers who live on West Howe & Turlin Moor, they will have to try a little harder.
The difference is that most drive newer cars and have more acceptable and successful appearance.
The reason that the more wealthy areas have a higher conviction rate is that they can afford to pay the occasional fine.
The effect of fines on poorer families is disproportionate. The end result is that families are punished for being poor.
Discuss
Another way the establishment and wealthy tread on the working people!! watch this space for plenty more of this in the coming 5 years!!!
stuartc73
says...
2:10pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Different day, same $h1t.
Perry_Winkle
says...
2:30pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Please tell me you're not one of those people who think 'driving slowly' = 'driving safely'.
We seem to have an inordinate number of drivers (normally not young) who think that driving at 35 regardless of the speed limit equates to being safe, but drive in the cycle lane, pull out round parked cars whether there's traffic coming toward them, and totally ignore pedestrian crossings.
uvox44
says...
3:36pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Perry_Winkle
says...
4:55pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Pretty much at the speed limit - most of the roads I use most of the time are so busy that it would be nigh on impossible to speed. Why do you ask?
grimreaper
says...
5:15pm Fri 10 Sep 10
.
So Pigs do fly !
EGHH
says...
5:30pm Fri 10 Sep 10
grimreaper
says...
5:37pm Fri 10 Sep 10
EGHH wrote:Read it again !!
Anyone else think this is a strange? Yesterday we had the recommendation to scrap speed cameras. Today we get the story that Dorset has the highest number of speeding drivers? I wonder where the Echo got the story from? DSCP perhaps. Do I detect a spinning operation at work?
EGHH
says...
5:47pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Exactly my point!
Bournemouthfan2
says...
5:51pm Fri 10 Sep 10
MartiB wrote:Excellent...the more you slow down the easier you are for me to overtake.
This just backs up my theory I have had for sometime on driving in and around Bournemouth and Poole. That is that the area has a large number of people who are quite well off and therefore either - 1. Don't care because they can easily afford the fine. 2. Think that because they are well off that they think that they are better than others and should have sole rights to the road and above the law. I have an easy approach, I treat others how they treat me. If you are courteous to me, I will be courteous to you. I don't care how much money you have, how flash your car is, where you live or who you know you have the same rights on the road as anyone else. You can tailgate me and flash your lights, but it won't make me go faster, in fact I may slow down. The only people that I get out the way for are those with flashing blue lights or green lights ;)
Give us a flash afterwards just to complete the satisfaction factor:-)
I have a clean licence btw.
That's my take on it but others may consider your actions to be inconsiderate and dangerous, no doubt you are spending more time looking in the rear view mirror and at the spedo than looking forward to see if a child has stepped in to the road.
MartiB
says...
6:33pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Perry_Winkle wrote:Unfortunately for you no. I drive at the speed limit and obey the rules of the road as I was taught. If it say 30 I drive at 30 if it says 60 I drive at 60.
MartiB
Please tell me you're not one of those people who think 'driving slowly' = 'driving safely'.
We seem to have an inordinate number of drivers (normally not young) who think that driving at 35 regardless of the speed limit equates to being safe, but drive in the cycle lane, pull out round parked cars whether there's traffic coming toward them, and totally ignore pedestrian crossings.
I also use my indicators, don't hog middle lanes and if my side of the road is obstructed I wait if traffic is coming the other way.
I spent several years in Germany where if you do something wrong and an accident is caused, they sue the **** of you. I don't find it difficult to do these things, it becomes automatic after a while ;)
MartiB
says...
6:55pm Fri 10 Sep 10
Bournemouthfan2 wrote:That could be your take on it, however if you manage to overtake me then you will either be speeding or you will hit a car coming in the opposite direction, I don't make it that simple ;) As for watching the speedo and rear view mirror, yes I am as well as looking for obstacles down the road. I am very aware of everything going on around my vehicle as when I am driving that is what I am concentrating on, nothing else and that is what all drivers should be doing.
MartiB wrote:Excellent...the more you slow down the easier you are for me to overtake.
This just backs up my theory I have had for sometime on driving in and around Bournemouth and Poole. That is that the area has a large number of people who are quite well off and therefore either - 1. Don't care because they can easily afford the fine. 2. Think that because they are well off that they think that they are better than others and should have sole rights to the road and above the law. I have an easy approach, I treat others how they treat me. If you are courteous to me, I will be courteous to you. I don't care how much money you have, how flash your car is, where you live or who you know you have the same rights on the road as anyone else. You can tailgate me and flash your lights, but it won't make me go faster, in fact I may slow down. The only people that I get out the way for are those with flashing blue lights or green lights ;)
Give us a flash afterwards just to complete the satisfaction factor:-)
I have a clean licence btw.
That's my take on it but others may consider your actions to be inconsiderate and dangerous, no doubt you are spending more time looking in the rear view mirror and at the spedo than looking forward to see if a child has stepped in to the road.
It is simple things such as looking down the road for potential hazards, leaving distance to the car in front of you and driving at a reasonable speed and within the speed limit, using indicators to tell other drivers what you plan to do in plenty of time that makes life easier for all road users. It is not rocket science, just common sense. The bonus of this is you can reduce fuel consumption, driving becomes less stressful, reduces accidents and it helps reduces congestion. Which in the long run will stop all the campaign groups and councils from having the grounds to carry on persecuting motorists. It is what James May calls christian motoring.
I am not saying I am a saint on the roads, because no driver is, despite what they might think. I enjoy cars, motor sport and driving however everyone just needs to adopt a common sense approach. So the next time you go out leave space between you and the car in front so someone can pull into it ;)
twobigdogs
says...
7:07pm Fri 10 Sep 10
MartiB wrote:What a load of old tosh!....dont matter how rich you are....rich or poor...you still get the points.... being well off means nothing with regards to speeding!
This just backs up my theory I have had for sometime on driving in and around Bournemouth and Poole. That is that the area has a large number of people who are quite well off and therefore either - 1. Don't care because they can easily afford the fine. 2. Think that because they are well off that they think that they are better than others and should have sole rights to the road and above the law. I have an easy approach, I treat others how they treat me. If you are courteous to me, I will be courteous to you. I don't care how much money you have, how flash your car is, where you live or who you know you have the same rights on the road as anyone else. You can tailgate me and flash your lights, but it won't make me go faster, in fact I may slow down. The only people that I get out the way for are those with flashing blue lights or green lights ;)
What a stupid survey...proves nothing........it just gives the speed camera nutters another chance to slag drivers off!
MartiB
says...
7:19pm Fri 10 Sep 10
twobigdogs wrote:Must be my imagination then, like the brand new Range Rover Sport I saw the other week with a number plate that must have cost more than car and the driver was driving round with one hand on the wheel and the other with his mobile to his ear.
MartiB wrote:What a load of old tosh!....dont matter how rich you are....rich or poor...you still get the points.... being well off means nothing with regards to speeding!
This just backs up my theory I have had for sometime on driving in and around Bournemouth and Poole. That is that the area has a large number of people who are quite well off and therefore either - 1. Don't care because they can easily afford the fine. 2. Think that because they are well off that they think that they are better than others and should have sole rights to the road and above the law. I have an easy approach, I treat others how they treat me. If you are courteous to me, I will be courteous to you. I don't care how much money you have, how flash your car is, where you live or who you know you have the same rights on the road as anyone else. You can tailgate me and flash your lights, but it won't make me go faster, in fact I may slow down. The only people that I get out the way for are those with flashing blue lights or green lights ;)
What a stupid survey...proves nothing........it just gives the speed camera nutters another chance to slag drivers off!
How about I rig up my video camera in the car, and take a drive through Bournemouth and Poole! In fact I could start a website with the footage :p
Or on the other hand what you are saying is that irrespective of how affluent people are that the residents of Bournemouth & Poole are all the same and don't have any respect for other people on the road!!
MartiB
says...
7:36pm Fri 10 Sep 10
1. If everyone drives at the speed limit, you won't catch the car up in front. Don't drive at 40 in 60 areas and then drive at 40 in 30 areas, like quite a few do.
2. Leave space in front of you, this allows you to brake in time and also for others to pull out in front of you, backing off slightly is not going to make a jot of a difference to your journey time.
3. Look down the road and anticipate hazards, such as people on the side of the road, cars waiting to pull out, slip roads etc and then take action to allow people to pull on from slip roads.
4. Use you indicators and in plenty of time. Other people don't have crystal ball's tell others what you are planning to do, so they can react accordingly in plenty of time.
5. On dual carriageways once you have overtaken pull back in, so others can get passed.
6. Allow plenty of time for your journey, so you don't have to rush.
7. Concentrate on your driving when behind the wheel, not your mobile or the stereo.
8. Be courteous and respect other road users, if we are courteous to others it will make the roads a happier place.
If people started doing these basic things all the threads on here would disappear. The speed camera groups will disband as they would not generate any money. The speed limit on the Wessex way would still be at 50mph, there wouldn't be tail backs due to accidents. The council will not have any grounds to introduce more taxes on motorists.
And before you start flaming me I am not a road safety nerd, I just want to get back to the days of old where I can go out and enjoy driving without being fleeced by the powers that be and am fed up with safety groups banging on about speed cameras as the solution to all the roads problems. Lets be honest it us the motorist who knows best ;)
OR
We can just carry on as it is now :O
dorsetspeed
says...
7:55pm Fri 10 Sep 10
.
Dorset Road Sa£e are doing a great job, then?
ian t
says...
9:56pm Fri 10 Sep 10
rook
says...
11:04pm Fri 10 Sep 10
I'd suspect the most likely correlation is with the total distance people drive and whether the places they drive have a high density of speed cameras and mobile units.
Rossi 27
says...
12:04am Sat 11 Sep 10
dorsetspeed wrote:What a stupid comment,if they were not doing a good job then these people would not be getting caught and would not then end up in this report. Even you can work that one out surely or maybe not.
"Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers" . Dorset Road Sa£e are doing a great job, then?
Rally
says...
12:30am Sat 11 Sep 10
MartiB wrote:How refreshing to have on this Forum some sound advice on safe (a.k.a. defensive) driving.
Bournemouthfan2 wrote:That could be your take on it, however if you manage to overtake me then you will either be speeding or you will hit a car coming in the opposite direction, I don't make it that simple ;) As for watching the speedo and rear view mirror, yes I am as well as looking for obstacles down the road. I am very aware of everything going on around my vehicle as when I am driving that is what I am concentrating on, nothing else and that is what all drivers should be doing. It is simple things such as looking down the road for potential hazards, leaving distance to the car in front of you and driving at a reasonable speed and within the speed limit, using indicators to tell other drivers what you plan to do in plenty of time that makes life easier for all road users. It is not rocket science, just common sense. The bonus of this is you can reduce fuel consumption, driving becomes less stressful, reduces accidents and it helps reduces congestion. Which in the long run will stop all the campaign groups and councils from having the grounds to carry on persecuting motorists. It is what James May calls christian motoring. I am not saying I am a saint on the roads, because no driver is, despite what they might think. I enjoy cars, motor sport and driving however everyone just needs to adopt a common sense approach. So the next time you go out leave space between you and the car in front so someone can pull into it ;)MartiB wrote: This just backs up my theory I have had for sometime on driving in and around Bournemouth and Poole. That is that the area has a large number of people who are quite well off and therefore either - 1. Don't care because they can easily afford the fine. 2. Think that because they are well off that they think that they are better than others and should have sole rights to the road and above the law. I have an easy approach, I treat others how they treat me. If you are courteous to me, I will be courteous to you. I don't care how much money you have, how flash your car is, where you live or who you know you have the same rights on the road as anyone else. You can tailgate me and flash your lights, but it won't make me go faster, in fact I may slow down. The only people that I get out the way for are those with flashing blue lights or green lights ;)Excellent...the more you slow down the easier you are for me to overtake. Give us a flash afterwards just to complete the satisfaction factor:-) I have a clean licence btw. That's my take on it but others may consider your actions to be inconsiderate and dangerous, no doubt you are spending more time looking in the rear view mirror and at the spedo than looking forward to see if a child has stepped in to the road.
Thank you, MartiB.
I think it is worth adding that this very important advice and more like it is available in books such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists 'Pass Your Advanced Driving Test', and 'Roadcraft: the Police Driver's Handbook'.
I really cannot recommend them highly enough.
You drivers who plead that 'not exceeding the speed limit means staring at the speedometer and not the road ahead' will learn something very useful. :)
Rally
says...
12:42am Sat 11 Sep 10
ian t wrote:Foolhardy? Yes.
you naughty lot going a little bit faster than the speed limit , naughty crims you all are , tut tut
Arrogant? Yes.
Irresponsible? Yes.
Ignorant? Yes.
Naughty crims? No.
;)
ian t
says...
7:31am Sat 11 Sep 10
rayc
says...
8:55am Sat 11 Sep 10
Rossi 27 wrote:How do you know they were 'caught' in Dorset? If Dorset Road Safe were doing a great job then the Echo would not need to run 'keep death of our roads campaigns' or the Police the current 'No Excuse' one.
dorsetspeed wrote: "Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers" . Dorset Road Sa£e are doing a great job, then?What a stupid comment,if they were not doing a good job then these people would not be getting caught and would not then end up in this report. Even you can work that one out surely or maybe not.
dorsetspeed
says...
9:07am Sat 11 Sep 10
Rossi 27 wrote:Typical of a DRS puppet, thinks the success of a road safety organisation should be measured by numbers of fines, not by actual reduced speeds.
dorsetspeed wrote: "Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers" . Dorset Road Sa£e are doing a great job, then?What a stupid comment,if they were not doing a good job then these people would not be getting caught and would not then end up in this report. Even you can work that one out surely or maybe not.
Rally
says...
5:49am Sun 12 Sep 10
ian t wrote:Just my personal opinion, ian T.
rally , que ?
I wouldn't take any notice, if I were you...
Rossi 27
says...
11:36am Sun 12 Sep 10
dorsetspeed wrote:Of course I forgot, if anyone disagrees with your opinion they are either employed by or in cahoots with the DRSP,what a pathetic little man you are. I do really think that you should come out of your ivory anti road safety tower and spend some time in the real world and observe what happens on our roads all the time. Without going into details the Echo reports a terrible accident in the Sandbanks area, having taken part in a midnight sponsored walk last Saturday in this area and witnessed the appalling dangerous and high speed driving over a 2 hour period I am not at all suprised about this very sad result, strange no speed cameras in that area.
Rossi 27 wrote:Typical of a DRS puppet, thinks the success of a road safety organisation should be measured by numbers of fines, not by actual reduced speeds.dorsetspeed wrote: "Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers" . Dorset Road Sa£e are doing a great job, then?What a stupid comment,if they were not doing a good job then these people would not be getting caught and would not then end up in this report. Even you can work that one out surely or maybe not.
Rossi 27
says...
11:44am Sun 12 Sep 10
rayc wrote:Its not really relevant whether they were caught in Dorset or not ,the fixed and mobile camera system is the same in most over areas.You don't honestly think for a minute that these same local residents suddenly become angels when they return home to these parts of our area do you?
Rossi 27 wrote:How do you know they were 'caught' in Dorset? If Dorset Road Safe were doing a great job then the Echo would not need to run 'keep death of our roads campaigns' or the Police the current 'No Excuse' one.dorsetspeed wrote: "Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers" . Dorset Road Sa£e are doing a great job, then?What a stupid comment,if they were not doing a good job then these people would not be getting caught and would not then end up in this report. Even you can work that one out surely or maybe not.
Its far more likely that they were caught in this area as statistically they will be spending more time travelling in there own back yard than anywhere else,its also a case that drivers are more complacent on familiar roads,thats one of the reasons why more collisions happen within half a mile of your home than anywhere else.
dorsetspeed
says...
7:34pm Sun 12 Sep 10
Rally
says...
10:38pm Sun 12 Sep 10
dorsetspeed wrote:dorsetspeed wrote: 'The fact that there is so much dangerous driving after 10 years or so of DSCP / DRS shows that it has not worked.'
The point is Rossi, if Dorset Road Safe were achieving improved driving and lower speeds where actually necessary, the accident may well not have happened. Issuing lots of fines is their primary concern, and this is COSTING LIVES. I have said many times we have bad driving and plenty of dangerous speeding on our roads, do you agree? We therefore need this to be properly targeted in order to reduce it. The fact that there is so much dangerous driving after 10 years or so of DSCP / DRS shows that it has not worked.
On the other hand:
When it was first launched in 1931 there were just 2.3 million motor vehicles in Great Britain, yet over 7,000 people were killed in road accidents each year.
Relevance? I hear dorsetspeed ask.
You tell me, dorsetspeed. You're the expert on these things, not me.
dorsetspeed
says...
8:18am Mon 13 Sep 10
The Liberal
says...
8:26am Mon 13 Sep 10
From a comment on 'Average speed cameras to be trialled in Broadstone, Poole’ (http://bit.ly/bLupp
l):
‘So when the installation is approved, the limit will be strictly enforced in the middle of the night when it is perfectly safe and reasonable to drive a little faster than when there are 100’s of kids running about – a perfect example of why fixed limits don’t provide a magic threshold of safety.’
The Liberal
says...
8:32am Mon 13 Sep 10
dorsetspeed
says...
9:23am Mon 13 Sep 10
So for example, when the roads are deserted, it would be entirely SAFE to drive on the northmost part of the 30 limit in Holes Bay, at up to 70 (it’s original design speed and speed limit, which actually worked perfectly well).
Likewise, anyone driving at the limit in a busy 30 limit residential road (often with only 1 car’s width, parked cars, high pedestrian probability and poor visibility) is driving INCREDIBLY dangerously.
This is why the obsession with fixed speed limits has ended up where it has, and a serious change is needed, if DANGEROUS driving is to be properly reduced.
The Liberal
says...
10:04am Mon 13 Sep 10
---
Surely it makes sense to have standard set speed limits that everyone can understand? And that enforcement of these should be rigorous (within the margins of accuracy of measuring equipment), because you have to draw the line somewhere and that line is called the speed limit. That is common sense, not your approach.
---
The irony if that if this variable speed limit idea of yours came into being, you'd still get disgruntled drivers complaining about being caught speeding when 'it was only a few minutes before the higher limit kicked in at night' for example. There are always people who can't acknowledge that they've broken the law and so won't pay the penalty without a lot of whingeing and excuse-making.
dorsetspeed
says...
10:50am Mon 13 Sep 10
The Liberal
says...
11:29am Mon 13 Sep 10
The real problem is that dangerous drivers are difficult to catch… until they actually cause a collision. Regular patrols of unmarked police cars would help, but would probably prove very costly.
dorsetspeed
says...
12:00pm Mon 13 Sep 10
The Liberal
says...
12:18pm Mon 13 Sep 10
The Liberal
says...
12:19pm Mon 13 Sep 10
The Liberal wrote:Oops, it would actually be 43.2mph. But you get the point?
The trouble is, if you say it's okay to drive at 36 in a 30, then why not 37, 38, 39, 40…? A maximum limit should be just that and we should expect people to obey it. The problem is that a lot of drivers will always do a certain amount or percentage over the limit. So if you raise the limit to 36 (ostensibly so that nearly everyone will be within the limit), they'll just drive even faster: if they do 20% over the limit (as now), that would be 45mph.
dorsetspeed
says...
12:44pm Mon 13 Sep 10
The Liberal
says...
1:34pm Mon 13 Sep 10
dorsetspeed
says...
1:52pm Mon 13 Sep 10
Rossi 27
says...
8:06pm Mon 13 Sep 10
dorsetspeed wrote:I believe that you have a very naive view on how drivers judge the correct sped to travel at, let me give you an example A road in Broadstone with a 30mph limit ,approx 1 mile long with numerous bends,humps, hills and few straight sections, through a housing estate with numerous cul de sacs and side roads, multiple other hazards like children playing, going to and from schools,parked cars,cyclists, pedestrians ,animals even drunks staggering along it after visiting the local pubs etc etc. A road that any normal sensible driver would travel at below the limit on? No in an 18 month period there were 26 reported collisions which have included cars in residents gardens, one on its roof,there has also been head-on collisions involving buses and cars. Monitoring was carried out over a period of one week at various times and for lengths of 2 hours maximum, it was judged that over 50% of the vehicles travelling on this road were exceeding the speed limit some by nearly double.Some of the worst repeat offenders were local residents.The Police and local councillors etc getting involved and a survey carried out , the result ,the residents get a share in a SID sign for a week at a time once every 3 months. Now you tell me that the majority of todays drivers are fit and capable of being the best judge of what speed to travel at. Cloud cuckoo land comes to mind.
No, I didn't say that at all. I only demonstrated that drivers' judgements, generally, are playing a bigger part than limits. Speed limits are useful, but they must be set realistically, and must not be thought of as a single-point solution to road safety.
dorsetspeed
says...
9:44pm Mon 13 Sep 10
.
I think you’ll find most of those accidents were caused by reckless and or careless driving, and that can include driving much too fast, obviously. But just because a boy racer wipes themselves out at 90, does not mean the limit must be reduced from 40 to 30. It means you need more effective policing on the roads.
The Liberal
says...
8:53am Tue 14 Sep 10
Take Safespeed.org for example, which has a graph purporting to show that most crashes occur at low speed (www.safespeed.org.u
k/speedlimits.html). The graph has no source for its data, nor even a vertical scale, and arbitrary units for the horizontal scale. What a joke. They then go on to infer that this proves that low-speed crashes are caused by 'doddery old fools' (ie that incompetent drivers are those driving slowly/within the limit) when it's patently obvious to anyone with common sense that many crashes occur at low speeds because of the increased likelihood of prangs in busy urban traffic. Conveniently for Safesepeed's agenda, there's also no mention of whether it is low-speed or high-speed crashes that are more likely to result in casualties/fatalitie
s.
They go on to claim that the safe speed on British rural roads ranges from 0 to over 150mph! It's clear that whoever wrote this nonsense is incredibly stupid or plain nuts.
dorsetspeed
says...
9:53am Tue 14 Sep 10
.
I just used statistics provided by pro-camera rossi and some very simple maths.
The Liberal
says...
10:08am Tue 14 Sep 10
As for the 150mph business, you are clearly off your rocker.
The Liberal
says...
10:24am Tue 14 Sep 10
Honestly, I gave you more credit than this. I thought you would disassociate yourself from that other site and say it had nothing to do with you, but no. Oh dear. Your credibility lies in tatters. Goodbye.
dorsetspeed
says...
11:03am Tue 14 Sep 10
Not that it’s really important, but please suggest why you consider my “hypothesis” is incorrect, if you think you do. Tyre blowout or mechanical failure are due to tyre blowout or mechanical failure, not due to speed.
The Liberal
says...
11:53am Tue 14 Sep 10
So 99.99% of drivers exceeding the limit are travelling a whole ONE MILE without having an accident. Wow!
Of course a tyre blowout or mechanical failure isn't CAUSED by speeding! But the effects of one would almost certainly be fatal at 150mph, unless the vehicle has a carbon-fibre monocoque to protect the driver.
Sorry, but I really can't be bothered to debate any more with someone who is prepared to make such utterly stupid points, purely for the sake of not disagreeing with a fellow anti-camera website.
Have a nice day.
dorsetspeed
says...
12:16pm Tue 14 Sep 10
By all means respond, but please let’s not waste time by going off the rails.
Rally
says...
3:58pm Tue 14 Sep 10
So which would you prefer, dorsetspeed, a tyre blowout at 30mph or one at 70mph?
You persistently sweepingly dismiss the speed element in driving in a cavalier fashion, and it is quite irresponsible of you.
Rally
says...
3:58pm Tue 14 Sep 10
So which would you prefer, dorsetspeed, a tyre blowout at 30mph or one at 70mph?
You persistently sweepingly dismiss the speed element in driving in a cavalier fashion, and it is quite irresponsible of you.
dorsetspeed
says...
5:16pm Tue 14 Sep 10
Rally
says...
12:41am Wed 15 Sep 10
dorsetspeed wrote:Hello dorsetspeed,
Rally, read the context of those comments, it was a hypothetical exchange about the possibility of 150MPH being safe. I was not suggesting that 150 on the Wessex Way or any other road is sensible! I'd rather have a blowout at 70 on a deserted dual carriageway than 30 on a single track road with oncoming traffic. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE SPEED!!! WHEN WILL IT SINK IN!!!
You need to 'read the context' of my comments. ;)
I am well aware 'it's not just about speed'.
But I keep getting the impression that you think speed is rarely a problem, and this bothers me.
Judging from comments by other posters, I am far from alone in this.
I suggest that part of the problem is your title: dorsetspeed.
'Speed' is usually equated with 'going faster', which makes folks see you as a 'speed merchant'.
Have you ever considered changing to a less provocative 'name'?
dorsetspeed
says...
8:17am Wed 15 Sep 10
The Liberal
says...
9:20am Wed 15 Sep 10
dorsetspeed
says...
9:43am Wed 15 Sep 10
ekimnoslen
says...
12:26pm Wed 15 Sep 10
Do I hear the boy racers shrieking in horror?
The Liberal
says...
12:32pm Wed 15 Sep 10
dorsetspeed wrote:On the contrary, I understand perfectly well. It's you who came up with the hypothetical conditions for safe driving at 150mph in the first place, instead of answering the question. So…
“The Liberal” can’t understand the difference between doing 40 on a straight wide dual carriageway, and wheel-spinning down busy residential streets. He is desperate to interpret a hypothetical discussion about the possibility of 150mph being safe as condoning excessive speeding, despite my simple explanation that it is not. I think this tells us all we need to know about him.
Do you, or do you not, agree with the opinion on the Safespeed website that the safe speed for travelling on RURAL ROADS ranges from 0mph to over 150mph?
Do you think their graph is scientific evidence, even though it has no data source, no vertical units and only arbitrary horizontal units?
Do you agree with their interpretation of said graph that it proves that inept, elderly low-speed drivers ('doddery old fools') are mainly to blame for the high number of crashes or low speeds?
dorsetspeed
says...
1:09pm Wed 15 Sep 10
However:
1. I believe it is theoretically possible to drive safely at 150 on a rural road (consider rally driving, I know they crash a lot but usually on corners), although I believe that the combination of circumstances required would occur very infrequently and would never suggest it would be sensible for anyone to go anywhere near this speed on a public rural road.
2. The graph is demonstrating normal distribution / accumulation of speeds, which seems entirely reasonable. I don’t know where the crash risk line comes from, but it seems entirely sensible, the majority of those driving at average speeds don’t crash, but as soon as speeds go beyond a certain point the risk obviously rises sharply. It also seems reasonable that those driving unusually slow increase risk, due to the fault of others who may not have realised their unusual speed, or that they might be going slow for another reason (inattention, incapability, eyesight, etc), or that they might cause indirect problems like increasing overtaking attempts, for example.
3. On this point, you’re simply going off the rails again. The “doddery old fool” is simply given as an example to show that risk is not proportional to speed. Your interpretation of this is a mile off.
The Liberal
says...
8:34am Thu 16 Sep 10
dorsetspeed
says...
2:07pm Thu 16 Sep 10
.
No, where did I say that?
.
"Neither do you address the fact that a low-speed crash is far less likely to result in serious injury or fatality."
.
I haven’t as it happens, but of course, crashing slower will reduce severity. Where did I say otherwise?
.
"I believe you have misinterpreted the statistics (which don't even have a reliable source in this case) to suit your own agenda. "
.
Please, tell me exactly what it is you believe I have misinterpreted.
.
"It shows you up and does your case (which may indeed have some merit) no good at all."
.
That’s only based on your interpretations! Please read what is written, not what you want to believe is written.
cpolak
says...
8:17pm Thu 16 Sep 10
Pineview
says...
6:06am Fri 17 Sep 10
More likely is that you see the Dorset speed camera van parked somewhere in the Sandbanks,Canford Cliffs Westbourne area almost daily.
If the van didn't stop there for 6 months there would be no fines ,simples.
Move it to Winton or Boscombe and less fines ,because there are less likely to pay them.
Spoke to a friend in Cornwall about the findings and said she was not surprised as she had lived there for 5 yrs and never seen a camera van .
Although she has been fined once when visiting me .Guess where ?? Sat 1 30 am Sandbanks 33mph !!
More News stories
- Cherries player Gary Bowles guilty of attack on ex-partner
- Christchurch councillors booed after deciding to demolish Druitt Hall
- Bournemouth University students to hold charity swap shop event
- NHS chief executive Roger Browning steps down after 20 years
- Bournemouth schools go green with textiles recycling competition
- Charity in memory of John Thornton raises £250,000
- Turlin Moor school making satisfactory progress, says Ofsted
- Bournemouth pupils design tributes to Red Arrows pilot Jon Egging
- Chris Huhne quits as minister over charge
- De Vere puts Bournemouth's Royal Bath hotel up for sale
Dorset residents top the list of speeding drivers
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Perry_Winkle says...
9:10am Fri 10 Sep 10
Is it just fixed penalties? Just magistrates courts? All instances? Over a year, a month, or five years?
Looks to me like a headline-grabber from Admiral.