15 cameras left to catch Dorset's speeders

Bournemouth Echo: Speed camera numbers have been reduced Speed camera numbers have been reduced

MOST of Dorset’s fixed speed cameras have been switched off, leaving just 15 to snap offenders.

The majority of the yellow boxes alongside the county’s roads are now empty.

But the casing will remain as a deterrent and cameras could be re-installed if a risk to public safety becomes apparent.

Three red light/speed on green cameras have also been removed and the number of mobile camera sites reduced from 33 to 28.

The news comes as figures reveal just £851,000 has been committed to Dorset Road Safe by Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset councils compared with £2 million two years ago.

But Dorset Road Safe has warned drivers not to attempt to flout the law at other sites around the county.

“The partnership members remain focused on reducing road death and serious injury and therefore all sites will be continually monitored and, where a risk is apparent to public safety, a camera will be reinstalled” said a spokesman.

Assistant Chief Constable of Dorset Police, Mike Glanville, chairman of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, said the successful No Excuse campaign will be expanded.

And head of traffic, Chief Inspector Bob Nichols added: “We are aware of the changes and, from a policing perspective, traffic officers will continue to conduct speed enforcement, both during the normal course of duty and through the No Excuse campaign.

“The No Excuse team operate using both marked and unmarked cars and motorbikes, which are fitted with speed detection equipment.”

Comments (164)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:17am Fri 15 Jul 11

Wingman says...

As I believe the partnerships own website that offences caught my static cameras are relatively low I am pleased that more money will be pumped into the No Excuses campaign.

Viewers of BBC1's Traffic Cops last night had a stark reminder of the lack of concentration demonstrated by one motorist on her mobile phone.

Fixed speed cameras have had their day and it is now time to try and another tact to deal with the problems.

In the past couple of weeks somebody has driven through a red light at a pedestrian crossing I was using and ignored a school crossing patrol. Fixed cameras do not catch these offences or mobile phones. More officers please.
As I believe the partnerships own website that offences caught my static cameras are relatively low I am pleased that more money will be pumped into the No Excuses campaign. Viewers of BBC1's Traffic Cops last night had a stark reminder of the lack of concentration demonstrated by one motorist on her mobile phone. Fixed speed cameras have had their day and it is now time to try and another tact to deal with the problems. In the past couple of weeks somebody has driven through a red light at a pedestrian crossing I was using and ignored a school crossing patrol. Fixed cameras do not catch these offences or mobile phones. More officers please. Wingman
  • Score: 0

10:37am Fri 15 Jul 11

ballstoit says...

Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing.
I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now?
Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that.
Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last. ballstoit
  • Score: 0

10:46am Fri 15 Jul 11

Adrian XX says...

ballstoit wrote:
Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing.
I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now?
Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that.
Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Speed is one of the causes of accidents - if you lose concentration at a low speed, you will get away with it whereas at a higher speed you may not. Also, an accident involving a pedestrian is more likely to cause death at higher speeds.

I think there is a future for automated offence detection: Tailgating cameras and perhaps cameras that will predict the likelihood of drink or drug drivers (who would then have to be stopped and tested by a police officer). There is no point in wasting money on police when a machine can do the job in a more consistent manner.
[quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Speed is one of the causes of accidents - if you lose concentration at a low speed, you will get away with it whereas at a higher speed you may not. Also, an accident involving a pedestrian is more likely to cause death at higher speeds. I think there is a future for automated offence detection: Tailgating cameras and perhaps cameras that will predict the likelihood of drink or drug drivers (who would then have to be stopped and tested by a police officer). There is no point in wasting money on police when a machine can do the job in a more consistent manner. Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

10:56am Fri 15 Jul 11

The Liberal says...

ballstoit wrote:
Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing.
I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now?
Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that.
Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Speed doesn't cause accidents? Thanks for that. I can now justify speeding along urban roads at any speed I like: 60, 70, 80mph or more. After all, it won't endanger anyone's safety.
[quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Speed doesn't cause accidents? Thanks for that. I can now justify speeding along urban roads at any speed I like: 60, 70, 80mph or more. After all, it won't endanger anyone's safety. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

10:59am Fri 15 Jul 11

Bob49 says...

"...the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing."

.
Or rather the myth that they were a money raising, gold mine for the government.

.

Blows rather a big hole in the pro criminal lobby brigade's endless bleats about these things.
"...the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing." . Or rather the myth that they were a money raising, gold mine for the government. . Blows rather a big hole in the pro criminal lobby brigade's endless bleats about these things. Bob49
  • Score: 0

11:01am Fri 15 Jul 11

frarog says...

Adrian XX wrote:
ballstoit wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Speed is one of the causes of accidents - if you lose concentration at a low speed, you will get away with it whereas at a higher speed you may not. Also, an accident involving a pedestrian is more likely to cause death at higher speeds. I think there is a future for automated offence detection: Tailgating cameras and perhaps cameras that will predict the likelihood of drink or drug drivers (who would then have to be stopped and tested by a police officer). There is no point in wasting money on police when a machine can do the job in a more consistent manner.
Maybe, but research in Italy and Canada has shown that you are far more likely to lose concentration at low speeds because you tend to become bored! Driving at faster speeds keeps you mentally alert!
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Speed is one of the causes of accidents - if you lose concentration at a low speed, you will get away with it whereas at a higher speed you may not. Also, an accident involving a pedestrian is more likely to cause death at higher speeds. I think there is a future for automated offence detection: Tailgating cameras and perhaps cameras that will predict the likelihood of drink or drug drivers (who would then have to be stopped and tested by a police officer). There is no point in wasting money on police when a machine can do the job in a more consistent manner.[/p][/quote]Maybe, but research in Italy and Canada has shown that you are far more likely to lose concentration at low speeds because you tend to become bored! Driving at faster speeds keeps you mentally alert! frarog
  • Score: 0

11:06am Fri 15 Jul 11

saynomore says...

frarog wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
ballstoit wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Speed is one of the causes of accidents - if you lose concentration at a low speed, you will get away with it whereas at a higher speed you may not. Also, an accident involving a pedestrian is more likely to cause death at higher speeds. I think there is a future for automated offence detection: Tailgating cameras and perhaps cameras that will predict the likelihood of drink or drug drivers (who would then have to be stopped and tested by a police officer). There is no point in wasting money on police when a machine can do the job in a more consistent manner.
Maybe, but research in Italy and Canada has shown that you are far more likely to lose concentration at low speeds because you tend to become bored! Driving at faster speeds keeps you mentally alert!
What a load of bol****s
[quote][p][bold]frarog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Speed is one of the causes of accidents - if you lose concentration at a low speed, you will get away with it whereas at a higher speed you may not. Also, an accident involving a pedestrian is more likely to cause death at higher speeds. I think there is a future for automated offence detection: Tailgating cameras and perhaps cameras that will predict the likelihood of drink or drug drivers (who would then have to be stopped and tested by a police officer). There is no point in wasting money on police when a machine can do the job in a more consistent manner.[/p][/quote]Maybe, but research in Italy and Canada has shown that you are far more likely to lose concentration at low speeds because you tend to become bored! Driving at faster speeds keeps you mentally alert![/p][/quote]What a load of bol****s saynomore
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 15 Jul 11

Panonica says...

I've still never got over the feeling of depression that we allowed ourselves to "sleepwalk into a surveillance society", of which these things are one of the most obvious examples.

Even worse have been the situations where speed cameras have been placed right outside homes, subjecting residents to continuous low-level microwave radiation over almost two decades. The lack of an outcry over this is presumably down to a complete lack of public awareness over how these devices work.
I've still never got over the feeling of depression that we allowed ourselves to "sleepwalk into a surveillance society", of which these things are one of the most obvious examples. Even worse have been the situations where speed cameras have been placed right outside homes, subjecting residents to continuous low-level microwave radiation over almost two decades. The lack of an outcry over this is presumably down to a complete lack of public awareness over how these devices work. Panonica
  • Score: 0

11:30am Fri 15 Jul 11

rayc says...

It should be fairly simple now that there are only 15 fixed cameras operational to provide the statistics for them. Assuming the ones retained are at the sites with the worst accident record and not those simply with the worst offending rate it should be simple to work out why most accidents occur at them and what engineering solutions could be used to make them more safe.
If the intention is to make all drivers not only obey all speed limits and also drive at an appropriate speed within them, it is paramount that the Police provide information and get the limits set correctly in the first place. It would help in this respect if the council power to reduce speed limits was curtailed.
As for leaving empty camera boxes up as a deterent this is the boy crying wolf and water down the serious safety issues at the operational sites.
The Police have lots of partners but seem reluctant to include motorists, who on the whole do not want to kill or injure themselves or others in it. The sooner the arrogant 'No Excuse' campaign is renamed with something that is inclusive to drivers the better.
It should be fairly simple now that there are only 15 fixed cameras operational to provide the statistics for them. Assuming the ones retained are at the sites with the worst accident record and not those simply with the worst offending rate it should be simple to work out why most accidents occur at them and what engineering solutions could be used to make them more safe. If the intention is to make all drivers not only obey all speed limits and also drive at an appropriate speed within them, it is paramount that the Police provide information and get the limits set correctly in the first place. It would help in this respect if the council power to reduce speed limits was curtailed. As for leaving empty camera boxes up as a deterent this is the boy crying wolf and water down the serious safety issues at the operational sites. The Police have lots of partners but seem reluctant to include motorists, who on the whole do not want to kill or injure themselves or others in it. The sooner the arrogant 'No Excuse' campaign is renamed with something that is inclusive to drivers the better. rayc
  • Score: 0

11:41am Fri 15 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

The one piece of common sense and correctness I’ve seen in 7 or 8 years of looking at Dorset Road Safe is in the lateast SEES report: “The low numbers involved create difficulties in identifying any particular trend.” Correct.

However, “Assistant Chief Constable of Dorset Police, Mike Glanville, chairman of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, said the successful No Excuse campaign will be expanded.”

All I’ve seen from Dorset Road Safe is delight at the numbers of fines they’ve managed to raise (many going on massively lucrative courses) and a few of the silly things people say. I’ve seen no evidence of any “success” whatsoever, of improving driving or respect for traffic law. Please tell us Mr Glanville, how you have come to this conclusion about success. Is it anything to do with the amount of money you’ve made? Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones? Why does Dorset police refuse to tell us what the £813,000 cost of courses is spent on?

“But the casing will remain as a deterrent and cameras could be re-installed if a risk to public safety becomes apparent.” Who will decide if a “risk becomes apparent”? Those whose jobs depend on cameras perhaps? The cases are more likely to act as a comfort to determined speeders and thugs who can’t believe their luck that the authorities are continuing to think that yellow boxes covering 0.1% of road space are a good way to enforce speed.

PLEASE CAN SOMEONE in the Dorset Authorities answer these and previous concerns.

The reducing funding of DRS is good, but our councils are demonstrating serious and dangerous incompetence by still spending £851,000 on DRS while no one can be bothered to answer the multitude of concerns raised, or are unable to without demonstrating that I am right.
The one piece of common sense and correctness I’ve seen in 7 or 8 years of looking at Dorset Road Safe is in the lateast SEES report: “The low numbers involved create difficulties in identifying any particular trend.” Correct. However, “Assistant Chief Constable of Dorset Police, Mike Glanville, chairman of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, said the successful No Excuse campaign will be expanded.” All I’ve seen from Dorset Road Safe is delight at the numbers of fines they’ve managed to raise (many going on massively lucrative courses) and a few of the silly things people say. I’ve seen no evidence of any “success” whatsoever, of improving driving or respect for traffic law. Please tell us Mr Glanville, how you have come to this conclusion about success. Is it anything to do with the amount of money you’ve made? Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones? Why does Dorset police refuse to tell us what the £813,000 cost of courses is spent on? “But the casing will remain as a deterrent and cameras could be re-installed if a risk to public safety becomes apparent.” Who will decide if a “risk becomes apparent”? Those whose jobs depend on cameras perhaps? The cases are more likely to act as a comfort to determined speeders and thugs who can’t believe their luck that the authorities are continuing to think that yellow boxes covering 0.1% of road space are a good way to enforce speed. PLEASE CAN SOMEONE in the Dorset Authorities answer these and previous concerns. The reducing funding of DRS is good, but our councils are demonstrating serious and dangerous incompetence by still spending £851,000 on DRS while no one can be bothered to answer the multitude of concerns raised, or are unable to without demonstrating that I am right. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Fri 15 Jul 11

rook says...

ballstoit wrote:
Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing.
I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now?
Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that.
Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Well said. Speed is NOT a cause of accidents. Inappropriate speed can be a cause of accidents. Millions of motorway miles are driven every day at speeds of 70 or 80 with very few accidents per mile. However, if there is torrential rain, most drivers on a motorway will slow to an appropriate speed. Those who don't should be treated the same as drivers breaking speed limits because they are not in full control and able to react to unexpected situations in the conditions they are driving in.

Likewise in towns, just because you are allowed to drive 30 doesn't mean you should do if other factors make it dangerous.

Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings.
[quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Well said. Speed is NOT a cause of accidents. Inappropriate speed can be a cause of accidents. Millions of motorway miles are driven every day at speeds of 70 or 80 with very few accidents per mile. However, if there is torrential rain, most drivers on a motorway will slow to an appropriate speed. Those who don't should be treated the same as drivers breaking speed limits because they are not in full control and able to react to unexpected situations in the conditions they are driving in. Likewise in towns, just because you are allowed to drive 30 doesn't mean you should do if other factors make it dangerous. Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings. rook
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Fri 15 Jul 11

rayc says...

rook wrote:
ballstoit wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Well said. Speed is NOT a cause of accidents. Inappropriate speed can be a cause of accidents. Millions of motorway miles are driven every day at speeds of 70 or 80 with very few accidents per mile. However, if there is torrential rain, most drivers on a motorway will slow to an appropriate speed. Those who don't should be treated the same as drivers breaking speed limits because they are not in full control and able to react to unexpected situations in the conditions they are driving in. Likewise in towns, just because you are allowed to drive 30 doesn't mean you should do if other factors make it dangerous. Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings.
Rook wrote "Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years"

Another blanket waste of money. It will though be a great money earner for those with those with a vested interest.

Target the Careless and Dangerous Drivers and those who are found to be at fault in serious accidents.
Provide cheap or free improvement courses for new drivers and target this education specifically at young drivers and give them a sigificant grant towards their insurance if they attend and show a positive attitude.
[quote][p][bold]rook[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Well said. Speed is NOT a cause of accidents. Inappropriate speed can be a cause of accidents. Millions of motorway miles are driven every day at speeds of 70 or 80 with very few accidents per mile. However, if there is torrential rain, most drivers on a motorway will slow to an appropriate speed. Those who don't should be treated the same as drivers breaking speed limits because they are not in full control and able to react to unexpected situations in the conditions they are driving in. Likewise in towns, just because you are allowed to drive 30 doesn't mean you should do if other factors make it dangerous. Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings.[/p][/quote]Rook wrote "Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years" Another blanket waste of money. It will though be a great money earner for those with those with a vested interest. Target the Careless and Dangerous Drivers and those who are found to be at fault in serious accidents. Provide cheap or free improvement courses for new drivers and target this education specifically at young drivers and give them a sigificant grant towards their insurance if they attend and show a positive attitude. rayc
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Fri 15 Jul 11

ballstoit says...

The Liberal wrote:
ballstoit wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Speed doesn't cause accidents? Thanks for that. I can now justify speeding along urban roads at any speed I like: 60, 70, 80mph or more. After all, it won't endanger anyone's safety.
Correct. Though your argument makes no sense and you will endanger others safety. You're missing the point.
If you did 100mph through a village and killed someone - your speed is not the root cause of that accident.
The cause is you not anticipating someone in the road and subsequently regulating your speed or driving behaviour. The accident would bea result of your lack of driving skill.

Obviously we all have to excersize common sense and drive to the conditions. Concentrating purely on speed blinkers us to the real cause of accidents in many cases.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Speed doesn't cause accidents? Thanks for that. I can now justify speeding along urban roads at any speed I like: 60, 70, 80mph or more. After all, it won't endanger anyone's safety.[/p][/quote]Correct. Though your argument makes no sense and you will endanger others safety. You're missing the point. If you did 100mph through a village and killed someone - your speed is not the root cause of that accident. The cause is you not anticipating someone in the road and subsequently regulating your speed or driving behaviour. The accident would bea result of your lack of driving skill. Obviously we all have to excersize common sense and drive to the conditions. Concentrating purely on speed blinkers us to the real cause of accidents in many cases. ballstoit
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Adrian XX says...

Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings.

But "better driving" is impossible to legislate for. Tailgating is difficult to prove in court, since there is no agreed standard, while lack of attention to surroundings is almost impossible as you would have to be observing the driver's eyes all the time. There is no legislation that states that you have to drive below a certain speed when it is raining. Do you want drivers to learn a formula for millimetres per minute of rain and maximum permissible speed? If so, cars are going to need rain gauges. If drivers are prepared to simply ignore simple speed limits, you are not going to get them to obey more complex laws on speed.
[quote]Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings.[/quote] But "better driving" is impossible to legislate for. Tailgating is difficult to prove in court, since there is no agreed standard, while lack of attention to surroundings is almost impossible as you would have to be observing the driver's eyes all the time. There is no legislation that states that you have to drive below a certain speed when it is raining. Do you want drivers to learn a formula for millimetres per minute of rain and maximum permissible speed? If so, cars are going to need rain gauges. If drivers are prepared to simply ignore simple speed limits, you are not going to get them to obey more complex laws on speed. Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Fri 15 Jul 11

The Liberal says...

dorsetspeed:“Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones?”
That's utter rubbish. The police target all offences on the road, serious and minor alike. They patrol the roads and if they spot someone breaking the law, they stop them. What's wrong with that?
[quote]dorsetspeed:“Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones?”[/quote] That's utter rubbish. The police target all offences on the road, serious and minor alike. They patrol the roads and if they spot someone breaking the law, they stop them. What's wrong with that? The Liberal
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Fri 15 Jul 11

glennzilla says...

You can guarantee that 3 of the 15 kept will be those on the stretch of the Wessex Way between ASDA and Frizzel's now Cllr Filer has confirmed that the 40mph limit is to remain!
You can guarantee that 3 of the 15 kept will be those on the stretch of the Wessex Way between ASDA and Frizzel's now Cllr Filer has confirmed that the 40mph limit is to remain! glennzilla
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Fri 15 Jul 11

rook says...

Adrian XX wrote:
Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings.

But "better driving" is impossible to legislate for. Tailgating is difficult to prove in court, since there is no agreed standard, while lack of attention to surroundings is almost impossible as you would have to be observing the driver's eyes all the time. There is no legislation that states that you have to drive below a certain speed when it is raining. Do you want drivers to learn a formula for millimetres per minute of rain and maximum permissible speed? If so, cars are going to need rain gauges. If drivers are prepared to simply ignore simple speed limits, you are not going to get them to obey more complex laws on speed.
Driving without due care and attention is the offence and should be enforced to make sure all drivers remain above a certain standard to make the road safe for drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

You have agreed that at certain times speed limits are too high for the conditions just based on a single example of heavy rain, then go on to say that speed is the only thing practical to enforce.

If I was working in the traffic department, I doubt I'd get more than a couple of miles from the station every day before running out of tickets. If the laws of the road were enforced rigidly I don't think you could drive a mile without seeing an offence in this country.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote]Better driving is the key to road safety. This would be improved if all drivers have to take a refresher test every three years and police enforcement of dangerous driving regulations including tailgating, lane discipline and lack of attention to your surroundings.[/quote] But "better driving" is impossible to legislate for. Tailgating is difficult to prove in court, since there is no agreed standard, while lack of attention to surroundings is almost impossible as you would have to be observing the driver's eyes all the time. There is no legislation that states that you have to drive below a certain speed when it is raining. Do you want drivers to learn a formula for millimetres per minute of rain and maximum permissible speed? If so, cars are going to need rain gauges. If drivers are prepared to simply ignore simple speed limits, you are not going to get them to obey more complex laws on speed.[/p][/quote]Driving without due care and attention is the offence and should be enforced to make sure all drivers remain above a certain standard to make the road safe for drivers, passengers and pedestrians. You have agreed that at certain times speed limits are too high for the conditions just based on a single example of heavy rain, then go on to say that speed is the only thing practical to enforce. If I was working in the traffic department, I doubt I'd get more than a couple of miles from the station every day before running out of tickets. If the laws of the road were enforced rigidly I don't think you could drive a mile without seeing an offence in this country. rook
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Sebh says...

ballstoit wrote:
Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Theres going to be a big difference if You lose control of your car and hit a tree at 100mph rather than hitting it at 50mph...

Muppet!!!
[quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Theres going to be a big difference if You lose control of your car and hit a tree at 100mph rather than hitting it at 50mph... Muppet!!! Sebh
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Adrian XX says...

Driving without due care and attention is the offence and should be enforced to make sure all drivers remain above a certain standard to make the road safe for drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

You have agreed that at certain times speed limits are too high for the conditions just based on a single example of heavy rain, then go on to say that speed is the only thing practical to enforce.


How many cases of tailgaiting have been prosecuted under the "due care and attention" law or the "careless driving" law? I am not saying there are none at all, but I doubt there are many simply because it is a matter of opinion how close you should be to the next car. Yes we have had campaigns in the past like "only a fool breaks the two second rule", but that "rule" is not law. Who is going to decide the distance or time that is appropriate in a court? Having said that, I would be all for a two-second rule becoming law and using cameras to enforce it.

My comment about rain is meant to illustrate that it is impossible to legislate for. If you don't have a rain gauge, then you should never be prosecuted for not taking rain into account. (The same way that if cars had no speedometers, it would be very unfair to prosecute anyone for speeding).
[quote]Driving without due care and attention is the offence and should be enforced to make sure all drivers remain above a certain standard to make the road safe for drivers, passengers and pedestrians. You have agreed that at certain times speed limits are too high for the conditions just based on a single example of heavy rain, then go on to say that speed is the only thing practical to enforce.[/quote] How many cases of tailgaiting have been prosecuted under the "due care and attention" law or the "careless driving" law? I am not saying there are none at all, but I doubt there are many simply because it is a matter of opinion how close you should be to the next car. Yes we have had campaigns in the past like "only a fool breaks the two second rule", but that "rule" is not law. Who is going to decide the distance or time that is appropriate in a court? Having said that, I would be all for a two-second rule becoming law and using cameras to enforce it. My comment about rain is meant to illustrate that it is impossible to legislate for. If you don't have a rain gauge, then you should never be prosecuted for not taking rain into account. (The same way that if cars had no speedometers, it would be very unfair to prosecute anyone for speeding). Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Fri 15 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed:“Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones?”
That's utter rubbish. The police target all offences on the road, serious and minor alike. They patrol the roads and if they spot someone breaking the law, they stop them. What's wrong with that?
95% of "offences" are speeding (47%), seatbelt (34%), and mobile phone (14%). Indeed these can be very dangerous, but they can be quite harmless, for example 37 MPH on the Holes Bay Road, not wearing a seat belt to drive around the corner, picking up a phone in slow / stationary traffic. Just 5% of offences are classified as "other", including mot, insurance, etc. It seems likely then that the figures for things like:
-tailgating
-undertaking / lane hogging
-road rage
-aggressive driving / racing
-drunk / drug driving
-lack of respect / awareness for other road users
-dangerous overtaking
-bad use of junctions / sliproads

i.e. the things that are DIRECTLY likely to CAUSE an accident (and which you can see all the time on the roads), must be nearly 0.

You need to employ different methods / strategies, to most effectively target the problems most likely to result in an accident, than you do to get the maximum possible number of people onto lucrative courses. Technology and intelligence, not gangs of target chasers and jobsworths.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]dorsetspeed:“Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones?”[/quote] That's utter rubbish. The police target all offences on the road, serious and minor alike. They patrol the roads and if they spot someone breaking the law, they stop them. What's wrong with that?[/p][/quote]95% of "offences" are speeding (47%), seatbelt (34%), and mobile phone (14%). Indeed these can be very dangerous, but they can be quite harmless, for example 37 MPH on the Holes Bay Road, not wearing a seat belt to drive around the corner, picking up a phone in slow / stationary traffic. Just 5% of offences are classified as "other", including mot, insurance, etc. It seems likely then that the figures for things like: -tailgating -undertaking / lane hogging -road rage -aggressive driving / racing -drunk / drug driving -lack of respect / awareness for other road users -dangerous overtaking -bad use of junctions / sliproads i.e. the things that are DIRECTLY likely to CAUSE an accident (and which you can see all the time on the roads), must be nearly 0. You need to employ different methods / strategies, to most effectively target the problems most likely to result in an accident, than you do to get the maximum possible number of people onto lucrative courses. Technology and intelligence, not gangs of target chasers and jobsworths. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Fri 15 Jul 11

News Fanatic says...

Speed cameras do not work because they are so visible and their locations publicised. They would be far more effective if they were hidden, so most drivers did not know where they were. Drivers would then be forced to obey speed limits at all times.
'
This used to be the case when police set up temporary speed traps. I remember seeing them in Lindsay Road, Branksome.
'
I can also remember motorists being prosecuted for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to warn them of speed checks. I recall a resident being prosecuted for displaying a "speed trap'' sign.
Speed cameras do not work because they are so visible and their locations publicised. They would be far more effective if they were hidden, so most drivers did not know where they were. Drivers would then be forced to obey speed limits at all times. ' This used to be the case when police set up temporary speed traps. I remember seeing them in Lindsay Road, Branksome. ' I can also remember motorists being prosecuted for flashing their lights at oncoming traffic to warn them of speed checks. I recall a resident being prosecuted for displaying a "speed trap'' sign. News Fanatic
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Fri 15 Jul 11

cardomon says...

Only in local government could a yellow box that basically just sits there printing money end up as a cost.
While i dont agree with their blanket use, you have to be some kind of bad businessman to run them at a loss.
Only in local government could a yellow box that basically just sits there printing money end up as a cost. While i dont agree with their blanket use, you have to be some kind of bad businessman to run them at a loss. cardomon
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Fri 15 Jul 11

rook says...

Sebh wrote:
ballstoit wrote:
Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Theres going to be a big difference if You lose control of your car and hit a tree at 100mph rather than hitting it at 50mph...

Muppet!!!
He even put 'cause' in capitals for you! Then you call the guy a muppet while quoting an example of an accident due to someone losing control and not their speed. Obviously more damage is caused by an object moving twice as fast.
[quote][p][bold]Sebh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Theres going to be a big difference if You lose control of your car and hit a tree at 100mph rather than hitting it at 50mph... Muppet!!![/p][/quote]He even put 'cause' in capitals for you! Then you call the guy a muppet while quoting an example of an accident due to someone losing control and not their speed. Obviously more damage is caused by an object moving twice as fast. rook
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Fri 15 Jul 11

iampuzzled says...

cardomon, Bournemouth says...
Only in local government could a yellow box that basically just sits there printing money end up as a cost.
Well, you forget the immense costs of re-painting the box in the latest shade of yellow after the paint has faded in the sunshine and the cost of polishing the lens. Then there are the costs of filling in the fine notices, postage costs and the costs of hauling the generated money off to the bank and bank charges. Then there is somebodies time costs for collating and printing out the spread-sheets so that they can be discussed and gloated over at the appropriate meeting(s) where participants will be provided with tea and buns at the taxpayers expense.
cardomon, Bournemouth says... Only in local government could a yellow box that basically just sits there printing money end up as a cost. Well, you forget the immense costs of re-painting the box in the latest shade of yellow after the paint has faded in the sunshine and the cost of polishing the lens. Then there are the costs of filling in the fine notices, postage costs and the costs of hauling the generated money off to the bank and bank charges. Then there is somebodies time costs for collating and printing out the spread-sheets so that they can be discussed and gloated over at the appropriate meeting(s) where participants will be provided with tea and buns at the taxpayers expense. iampuzzled
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Fri 15 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

“Obviously more damage is caused by an object moving twice as fast.” Well, sort of. What matters is the speed at the instant of contact, this is only loosely related to the free speed before the situation started to develop. Important factors then are attention, distance, avoidance skill, reaction time, road surface, tyres, brakes, etc. It’s easy to spot inattentive drivers leaving inadequate distances, there’s loads of them, entirely ignored by most of our road policing methods. If I was going to come off my bike, I’d prefer the following drivers to be driving up to 70 (or more), but thinking about what they are doing and leaving a safe distance, than just doing 50 because it says so in a red circle and all the road safety people tell them that it’s safe to drive within the limit and it’s dangerous to go over. It’s not true!
“Obviously more damage is caused by an object moving twice as fast.” Well, sort of. What matters is the speed at the instant of contact, this is only loosely related to the free speed before the situation started to develop. Important factors then are attention, distance, avoidance skill, reaction time, road surface, tyres, brakes, etc. It’s easy to spot inattentive drivers leaving inadequate distances, there’s loads of them, entirely ignored by most of our road policing methods. If I was going to come off my bike, I’d prefer the following drivers to be driving up to 70 (or more), but thinking about what they are doing and leaving a safe distance, than just doing 50 because it says so in a red circle and all the road safety people tell them that it’s safe to drive within the limit and it’s dangerous to go over. It’s not true! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Tezza1965 says...

If all but 15 of the yellow boxes are empty then these should be removed. Leaving them in place and not disclosing which cameras are still active proves that Dorset Road Safe are now pusuing an agenda of deceit against the motorist. Should we be surprised? Of course not. The disgraceful tactics DRS now employ to justify their existence beggars belief. For example, parking their mobile vans just around blind bends, or where they are half hidden behind bushes, or parking completely out of sight on dark evenings and placing a tiny camera box at the side of the road. Absolutely disgusting.
The sooner DRS are consigned to history the better. Until then I will continue to give their low life operatives a friendly one fingered salute every time I pass one of their vans.
If all but 15 of the yellow boxes are empty then these should be removed. Leaving them in place and not disclosing which cameras are still active proves that Dorset Road Safe are now pusuing an agenda of deceit against the motorist. Should we be surprised? Of course not. The disgraceful tactics DRS now employ to justify their existence beggars belief. For example, parking their mobile vans just around blind bends, or where they are half hidden behind bushes, or parking completely out of sight on dark evenings and placing a tiny camera box at the side of the road. Absolutely disgusting. The sooner DRS are consigned to history the better. Until then I will continue to give their low life operatives a friendly one fingered salute every time I pass one of their vans. Tezza1965
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Fri 15 Jul 11

indefinable says...

What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes! indefinable
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Fri 15 Jul 11

hucky999 says...

Panonica wrote:
I've still never got over the feeling of depression that we allowed ourselves to "sleepwalk into a surveillance society", of which these things are one of the most obvious examples. Even worse have been the situations where speed cameras have been placed right outside homes, subjecting residents to continuous low-level microwave radiation over almost two decades. The lack of an outcry over this is presumably down to a complete lack of public awareness over how these devices work.
What a load of crap! Hope you never drive past an airport, coastgaurd station or anywhere else where there is a radar which produces more microwave radiation than anything else. and besides most speed detection systems use infra red.
[quote][p][bold]Panonica[/bold] wrote: I've still never got over the feeling of depression that we allowed ourselves to "sleepwalk into a surveillance society", of which these things are one of the most obvious examples. Even worse have been the situations where speed cameras have been placed right outside homes, subjecting residents to continuous low-level microwave radiation over almost two decades. The lack of an outcry over this is presumably down to a complete lack of public awareness over how these devices work.[/p][/quote]What a load of crap! Hope you never drive past an airport, coastgaurd station or anywhere else where there is a radar which produces more microwave radiation than anything else. and besides most speed detection systems use infra red. hucky999
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Fri 15 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.
[quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Fri 15 Jul 11

EGHH says...

Accidents are caused by careless drivers not speed. Yesterday I was on the A31 at Ringwood travelling at 55mph. A car joined from one of the suicide runs (or slip-roads if you prefer) without looking. I had to do some very hard braking to avoid colliding with it. I couldn't change lanes as there vehicles alongside me. Today I noticed someone was not so quick to react and two cars had collided at the very same spot.
Accidents are caused by careless drivers not speed. Yesterday I was on the A31 at Ringwood travelling at 55mph. A car joined from one of the suicide runs (or slip-roads if you prefer) without looking. I had to do some very hard braking to avoid colliding with it. I couldn't change lanes as there vehicles alongside me. Today I noticed someone was not so quick to react and two cars had collided at the very same spot. EGHH
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Fri 15 Jul 11

weevie says...

Just another minor element to introduce. Electronic / computing driving aids, (EBS and the like) have now been around long enough for many, many drivers to forget they are not bulletproof. Soon younger drivers will NEVER have REALLY driven a vehicle with anything like the same sense of understanding, finess & quality that a good driver might once have. So we need more silly signs, odd road markings, cameras, silly white lines you cannot follow safely, coloured tarmac etc etc. Idiots, idiots, idiots.
Just another minor element to introduce. Electronic / computing driving aids, (EBS and the like) have now been around long enough for many, many drivers to forget they are not bulletproof. Soon younger drivers will NEVER have REALLY driven a vehicle with anything like the same sense of understanding, finess & quality that a good driver might once have. So we need more silly signs, odd road markings, cameras, silly white lines you cannot follow safely, coloured tarmac etc etc. Idiots, idiots, idiots. weevie
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Tezza1965 says...

indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
[quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today. Tezza1965
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Fri 15 Jul 11

indefinable says...

Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
[quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers? indefinable
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Fri 15 Jul 11

rayc says...

quote: "My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions".
The FPN and Speed Awareness courses are, according to the Transport Secretary, aimed at the normally careful driver who makes an uncharacteristic mistake. It's best not to get too cocky as with the lowering of limits, multi changes from 30 to 40 to 50 etc. on roads that appear to a competent driver the same it is easy to be caught out.

I wonder how much more unsafe I feel knowing there are less cameras operational. What would really increase my feeling of safety is to know what it is about the 15 sites that are to remain operational that is so dangerous.
If the unoperational camera heads were removed or bagged and there was only camera signage at the 15 operational sites and at operational mobile sites then the safety aspect would be reinforced.

If safety is the number one priority publicise the accident blackspots and engineer the problems out if possible.
quote: "My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions". The FPN and Speed Awareness courses are, according to the Transport Secretary, aimed at the normally careful driver who makes an uncharacteristic mistake. It's best not to get too cocky as with the lowering of limits, multi changes from 30 to 40 to 50 etc. on roads that appear to a competent driver the same it is easy to be caught out. I wonder how much more unsafe I feel knowing there are less cameras operational. What would really increase my feeling of safety is to know what it is about the 15 sites that are to remain operational that is so dangerous. If the unoperational camera heads were removed or bagged and there was only camera signage at the 15 operational sites and at operational mobile sites then the safety aspect would be reinforced. If safety is the number one priority publicise the accident blackspots and engineer the problems out if possible. rayc
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Fri 15 Jul 11

twobigdogs says...

Good about time......common sense prevails........the scameras were just a money maker nothing else!...More police on the roads is whats needed.
Good about time......common sense prevails........the scameras were just a money maker nothing else!...More police on the roads is whats needed. twobigdogs
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Thehairyone says...

I don't know if the fact that these cameras are made within the Poole area has any bearing on the,up to now,proliferation of them in the area. Looking at the junction of Cabot lane and Broadstone Way would show that someone has a vested interest in the cameras. Also as a professional driver (PCV and HGV),I believe the problems out there seem to stem from ignorance of the way other vehicles behave. Education on 'reading' the road,reasonable speed limits (80mph on M/Ways against enforced 20mph outside schools with harsher penalties for flouting them) and bringing the basic driving test up to 'advanced' standards are the way forward.
I don't know if the fact that these cameras are made within the Poole area has any bearing on the,up to now,proliferation of them in the area. Looking at the junction of Cabot lane and Broadstone Way would show that someone has a vested interest in the cameras. Also as a professional driver (PCV and HGV),I believe the problems out there seem to stem from ignorance of the way other vehicles behave. Education on 'reading' the road,reasonable speed limits (80mph on M/Ways against enforced 20mph outside schools with harsher penalties for flouting them) and bringing the basic driving test up to 'advanced' standards are the way forward. Thehairyone
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Fri 15 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes!
indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Adrian XX says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes!
That problem is best solved by average speed cameras, though not painting the existing cameras yellow would help.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes![/p][/quote]That problem is best solved by average speed cameras, though not painting the existing cameras yellow would help. Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Fri 15 Jul 11

PokesdownMark says...

Sebh wrote:
ballstoit wrote:
Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.
Theres going to be a big difference if You lose control of your car and hit a tree at 100mph rather than hitting it at 50mph...

Muppet!!!
But that argument is nothing to do with fixed speed cameras. Which are completely useless at catching the habitual speeder anyway.

So don't mourn the passing of the fixed speed camera age. It was a cul-de-sac of road safety and finally we seem to be moving on to better, more effective and more finessed approach to reducing the remaining KSI incidents.
[quote][p][bold]Sebh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ballstoit[/bold] wrote: Busting once and for all the MYTH that these speed cameras were entirely self-financing. I wander how much of our taxes have been wasted on these things up til now? Yes they serve to slow down traffic but speed doesnt CAUSE accidents. Driver error/lack of concentration does that. Congratulations to Dorset Police on seeing sense and investing in the No-Excuses campaign - proactive policing at last.[/p][/quote]Theres going to be a big difference if You lose control of your car and hit a tree at 100mph rather than hitting it at 50mph... Muppet!!![/p][/quote]But that argument is nothing to do with fixed speed cameras. Which are completely useless at catching the habitual speeder anyway. So don't mourn the passing of the fixed speed camera age. It was a cul-de-sac of road safety and finally we seem to be moving on to better, more effective and more finessed approach to reducing the remaining KSI incidents. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Fri 15 Jul 11

PokesdownMark says...

"Tailgating is difficult to prove in court, since there is no agreed standard"
------
I believe they use tailgate detecting cameras on motorways in Germany?
"Tailgating is difficult to prove in court, since there is no agreed standard" ------ I believe they use tailgate detecting cameras on motorways in Germany? PokesdownMark
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Fri 15 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Adrian XX wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes!
That problem is best solved by average speed cameras, though not painting the existing cameras yellow would help.
Surely you're not suggesting our "road safety experts" in Dorset are not delivering the best solutions available to them to make our roads safer?
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes![/p][/quote]That problem is best solved by average speed cameras, though not painting the existing cameras yellow would help.[/p][/quote]Surely you're not suggesting our "road safety experts" in Dorset are not delivering the best solutions available to them to make our roads safer? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Fri 15 Jul 11

rayc says...

Adrian XX wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes!
That problem is best solved by average speed cameras, though not painting the existing cameras yellow would help.
Average speed cameras are preety useless in urban situations where there are lots of entry exit roads within the length of the enforcement.
They would soon appear on sat navs making avoidance easy. You would though get compliance so every body would be happy except of course those who control the purse strings.
I thought the whole idea of speed cameras was to place them at genuine accident sites and paint them in high profile colours so that there was mass compliance. A camera that flashes has failed in its prime purpose of preventing speeding in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: indefinable, "I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.", yes, just like all the boy racers, thugs, drunks, etc. who would not get fined because they've figured out all they have to do is to drive slowly past yellow boxes![/p][/quote]That problem is best solved by average speed cameras, though not painting the existing cameras yellow would help.[/p][/quote]Average speed cameras are preety useless in urban situations where there are lots of entry exit roads within the length of the enforcement. They would soon appear on sat navs making avoidance easy. You would though get compliance so every body would be happy except of course those who control the purse strings. I thought the whole idea of speed cameras was to place them at genuine accident sites and paint them in high profile colours so that there was mass compliance. A camera that flashes has failed in its prime purpose of preventing speeding in the first place. rayc
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Panonica says...

hucky999 wrote:
Panonica wrote:
I've still never got over the feeling of depression that we allowed ourselves to "sleepwalk into a surveillance society", of which these things are one of the most obvious examples. Even worse have been the situations where speed cameras have been placed right outside homes, subjecting residents to continuous low-level microwave radiation over almost two decades. The lack of an outcry over this is presumably down to a complete lack of public awareness over how these devices work.
What a load of crap! Hope you never drive past an airport, coastgaurd station or anywhere else where there is a radar which produces more microwave radiation than anything else. and besides most speed detection systems use infra red.
Apart from the fact that Gatso cameras in the UK use K or Ka band microwave, not IR, you've totally missed the point. A resident is not driving past a camera, they are spending 8 or 10 hours asleep in virtually the same position, night after night, with virtually the same parts of the body subjected to the maxima (and minima) of the microwave interference fringes.
[quote][p][bold]hucky999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Panonica[/bold] wrote: I've still never got over the feeling of depression that we allowed ourselves to "sleepwalk into a surveillance society", of which these things are one of the most obvious examples. Even worse have been the situations where speed cameras have been placed right outside homes, subjecting residents to continuous low-level microwave radiation over almost two decades. The lack of an outcry over this is presumably down to a complete lack of public awareness over how these devices work.[/p][/quote]What a load of crap! Hope you never drive past an airport, coastgaurd station or anywhere else where there is a radar which produces more microwave radiation than anything else. and besides most speed detection systems use infra red.[/p][/quote]Apart from the fact that Gatso cameras in the UK use K or Ka band microwave, not IR, you've totally missed the point. A resident is not driving past a camera, they are spending 8 or 10 hours asleep in virtually the same position, night after night, with virtually the same parts of the body subjected to the maxima (and minima) of the microwave interference fringes. Panonica
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Adrian XX says...

night after night, with virtually the same parts of the body subjected to the maxima (and minima) of the microwave interference fringes.

The wavelength is 1 to 2cm. Surely if they shuffle around a bit, they're just going to expose their whole body, rather than get a maxima at the belly button all night, every night.
[quote]night after night, with virtually the same parts of the body subjected to the maxima (and minima) of the microwave interference fringes.[/quote] The wavelength is 1 to 2cm. Surely if they shuffle around a bit, they're just going to expose their whole body, rather than get a maxima at the belly button all night, every night. Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Fri 15 Jul 11

DorsetEco says...

Police have much more important work to do for us than try to detect the many driving incompetences occurring on our roads. The place for the devices to detect poor driving and illegal driving is in the vehicle. All vehicles from new should be supplied fitted with such a device which automatically reports any misdemeanour. The owner in effect pays for the equipment which will prove them to be within the law
Police have much more important work to do for us than try to detect the many driving incompetences occurring on our roads. The place for the devices to detect poor driving and illegal driving is in the vehicle. All vehicles from new should be supplied fitted with such a device which automatically reports any misdemeanour. The owner in effect pays for the equipment which will prove them to be within the law DorsetEco
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Fri 15 Jul 11

Tezza1965 says...

indefinable wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.
[quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?[/p][/quote]Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron. Tezza1965
  • Score: 0

10:46pm Fri 15 Jul 11

PokesdownMark says...

Adrian XX wrote:
night after night, with virtually the same parts of the body subjected to the maxima (and minima) of the microwave interference fringes.

The wavelength is 1 to 2cm. Surely if they shuffle around a bit, they're just going to expose their whole body, rather than get a maxima at the belly button all night, every night.
If only houses had... I dunno.. something to block the whole 15 milliwatts of power that gets directionally beamed out? Something like a radiation barrier. Like, I know this sounds crazy, some kind of solid type of material. Maybe to be on the safe side, two layers with a small air gap in between? What do you think? Could use them to hold the roof up too!
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote]night after night, with virtually the same parts of the body subjected to the maxima (and minima) of the microwave interference fringes.[/quote] The wavelength is 1 to 2cm. Surely if they shuffle around a bit, they're just going to expose their whole body, rather than get a maxima at the belly button all night, every night.[/p][/quote]If only houses had... I dunno.. something to block the whole 15 milliwatts of power that gets directionally beamed out? Something like a radiation barrier. Like, I know this sounds crazy, some kind of solid type of material. Maybe to be on the safe side, two layers with a small air gap in between? What do you think? Could use them to hold the roof up too! PokesdownMark
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Fri 15 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.
Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.
[quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?[/p][/quote]Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.[/p][/quote]Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:08am Sat 16 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.
You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.[/p][/quote]You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

7:45am Sat 16 Jul 11

northstandman says...

The reason they target motorists is quite simple.

If you are prepared to disobey traffic law, you're very often disobeying other laws.

The police very often catch disqualified and drugged up drivers, illegal immigrants and a whole host of 'wrong un's' from poor driving.
The reason they target motorists is quite simple. If you are prepared to disobey traffic law, you're very often disobeying other laws. The police very often catch disqualified and drugged up drivers, illegal immigrants and a whole host of 'wrong un's' from poor driving. northstandman
  • Score: 0

8:25am Sat 16 Jul 11

indefinable says...

tbpoole wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.
Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.
"people may actually listen to you"
LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers!
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?[/p][/quote]Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.[/p][/quote]Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.[/p][/quote]"people may actually listen to you" LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers! indefinable
  • Score: 0

9:15am Sat 16 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.
You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either.
There are about 40 non jobs at Dorset Road Safe. Just 10, actually, just 2, properly motivated front line traffic cops could do more for road safety than all these jobsworths and paper pushers. And it’s not just about staff, it’s about intelligence, technology, and making best use of available resources. So even a tiny amount of what is right, instead of a lot of what is wrong because we are told it’s all we can afford, would be a very good idea indeed.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.[/p][/quote]You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either.[/p][/quote]There are about 40 non jobs at Dorset Road Safe. Just 10, actually, just 2, properly motivated front line traffic cops could do more for road safety than all these jobsworths and paper pushers. And it’s not just about staff, it’s about intelligence, technology, and making best use of available resources. So even a tiny amount of what is right, instead of a lot of what is wrong because we are told it’s all we can afford, would be a very good idea indeed. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:56am Sat 16 Jul 11

rayc says...

northstandman wrote:
The reason they target motorists is quite simple. If you are prepared to disobey traffic law, you're very often disobeying other laws. The police very often catch disqualified and drugged up drivers, illegal immigrants and a whole host of 'wrong un's' from poor driving.
How many drivers who have been caught by a camera fall into that catergory?
If Dorset Police had caught disqualified and drugged up drivers, illegal immigrants and a whole host of 'wrong un's' from poor driving then you could be sure they would be boasting about it in their regular No Excuse reports.

The vast majority of driving offences are dealt with by courses or FPN's. The Transport Secretary is on record as saying that these are aimed at the normal law abiding driver who makes an uncharacteristic error. I would be very surprised if more than 1% of drivers who have received a SP30 speeding offence in the last 10 years has a conviction for any other offence.
[quote][p][bold]northstandman[/bold] wrote: The reason they target motorists is quite simple. If you are prepared to disobey traffic law, you're very often disobeying other laws. The police very often catch disqualified and drugged up drivers, illegal immigrants and a whole host of 'wrong un's' from poor driving.[/p][/quote]How many drivers who have been caught by a camera fall into that catergory? If Dorset Police had caught disqualified and drugged up drivers, illegal immigrants and a whole host of 'wrong un's' from poor driving then you could be sure they would be boasting about it in their regular No Excuse reports. The vast majority of driving offences are dealt with by courses or FPN's. The Transport Secretary is on record as saying that these are aimed at the normal law abiding driver who makes an uncharacteristic error. I would be very surprised if more than 1% of drivers who have received a SP30 speeding offence in the last 10 years has a conviction for any other offence. rayc
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Sat 16 Jul 11

Tezza1965 says...

indefinable wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.
Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.
"people may actually listen to you"
LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers!
I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from?
[quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?[/p][/quote]Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.[/p][/quote]Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.[/p][/quote]"people may actually listen to you" LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers![/p][/quote]I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from? Tezza1965
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Sat 16 Jul 11

s-pb2 says...

Blimey that same boring clap trap as usual!! Im sure the Echo just prints these to wind the same dullards up
Blimey that same boring clap trap as usual!! Im sure the Echo just prints these to wind the same dullards up s-pb2
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Sat 16 Jul 11

penhale says...

There's no need for all the bickering and silly comments resulting from this story, the main thing to celebrate is that out of 40 or so speed cameras in Dorset the number is being reduced to 15, mostly I suspect because of the cut in funding and partly because it's well known that councils place these cash machines in places where accidents are not a problem but money generation is ripe for the taking, it will make me so much happier when all of the D.S.C.P staff end up in the unemployment where they belong and have to scrimp and save to buy their food and pay their bills like so many others that they have fined for very minor infringements of the speed limit.
Roll on the day when all of these things are consigned to the scrap heap along with the staff that serviced and ran them.
There's no need for all the bickering and silly comments resulting from this story, the main thing to celebrate is that out of 40 or so speed cameras in Dorset the number is being reduced to 15, mostly I suspect because of the cut in funding and partly because it's well known that councils place these cash machines in places where accidents are not a problem but money generation is ripe for the taking, it will make me so much happier when all of the D.S.C.P staff end up in the unemployment where they belong and have to scrimp and save to buy their food and pay their bills like so many others that they have fined for very minor infringements of the speed limit. Roll on the day when all of these things are consigned to the scrap heap along with the staff that serviced and ran them. penhale
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Sat 16 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.
You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either.
There are about 40 non jobs at Dorset Road Safe. Just 10, actually, just 2, properly motivated front line traffic cops could do more for road safety than all these jobsworths and paper pushers. And it’s not just about staff, it’s about intelligence, technology, and making best use of available resources. So even a tiny amount of what is right, instead of a lot of what is wrong because we are told it’s all we can afford, would be a very good idea indeed.
Yes, so two traffic cops covering the whole of Dorset! Don't make me laugh! If they can fully cover 10 miles of road on each shift - how do they cover the remaining 4,000 or so miles? You could spread them more thinly but then you'll miss all the bad driving you bang on about so much....you say you want to use technology too but then dismiss measures that don't suit you.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.[/p][/quote]You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either.[/p][/quote]There are about 40 non jobs at Dorset Road Safe. Just 10, actually, just 2, properly motivated front line traffic cops could do more for road safety than all these jobsworths and paper pushers. And it’s not just about staff, it’s about intelligence, technology, and making best use of available resources. So even a tiny amount of what is right, instead of a lot of what is wrong because we are told it’s all we can afford, would be a very good idea indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes, so two traffic cops covering the whole of Dorset! Don't make me laugh! If they can fully cover 10 miles of road on each shift - how do they cover the remaining 4,000 or so miles? You could spread them more thinly but then you'll miss all the bad driving you bang on about so much....you say you want to use technology too but then dismiss measures that don't suit you. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Sat 16 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.
Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.
"people may actually listen to you"
LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers!
I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from?
I'm not agitated - I would like to hear if you have something sensible to say but I've yet to read one post from you that isn't either abusive or condescending to everyone who holds the opposite viewpoint. Join the debate, don't just make yourself sound like a broken record.
[quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?[/p][/quote]Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.[/p][/quote]Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.[/p][/quote]"people may actually listen to you" LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers![/p][/quote]I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from?[/p][/quote]I'm not agitated - I would like to hear if you have something sensible to say but I've yet to read one post from you that isn't either abusive or condescending to everyone who holds the opposite viewpoint. Join the debate, don't just make yourself sound like a broken record. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Sat 16 Jul 11

rayc says...

tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
indefinable wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.
You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either.
There are about 40 non jobs at Dorset Road Safe. Just 10, actually, just 2, properly motivated front line traffic cops could do more for road safety than all these jobsworths and paper pushers. And it’s not just about staff, it’s about intelligence, technology, and making best use of available resources. So even a tiny amount of what is right, instead of a lot of what is wrong because we are told it’s all we can afford, would be a very good idea indeed.
Yes, so two traffic cops covering the whole of Dorset! Don't make me laugh! If they can fully cover 10 miles of road on each shift - how do they cover the remaining 4,000 or so miles? You could spread them more thinly but then you'll miss all the bad driving you bang on about so much....you say you want to use technology too but then dismiss measures that don't suit you.
"Yes, so two traffic cops covering the whole of Dorset!"

One of the claims by Mr Garret and Inspector Chalk when the Partnership was formed was that Dorset Traffic officers would be able to concentrate on serious road crime. What happened to them?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't think we will end up with a camera on every road (every 50 yards, presumably), better to call for something which is achievable, like proper policing.[/p][/quote]You keep on about proper policing but have you sat down and worked out how many patrol cars you would need to cover even 5% of the road network at any one time? And then you would need to double that number for the next shift to cover the rest of the day....you're probably talking about hundreds of cars and police, plus all the back up mechanics, not forgetting the fuel costs. I would imagine that it would cost many times more than cameras do and would add substantially to the cost of Council Tax....still a good idea? No I don't think so either.[/p][/quote]There are about 40 non jobs at Dorset Road Safe. Just 10, actually, just 2, properly motivated front line traffic cops could do more for road safety than all these jobsworths and paper pushers. And it’s not just about staff, it’s about intelligence, technology, and making best use of available resources. So even a tiny amount of what is right, instead of a lot of what is wrong because we are told it’s all we can afford, would be a very good idea indeed.[/p][/quote]Yes, so two traffic cops covering the whole of Dorset! Don't make me laugh! If they can fully cover 10 miles of road on each shift - how do they cover the remaining 4,000 or so miles? You could spread them more thinly but then you'll miss all the bad driving you bang on about so much....you say you want to use technology too but then dismiss measures that don't suit you.[/p][/quote]"Yes, so two traffic cops covering the whole of Dorset!" One of the claims by Mr Garret and Inspector Chalk when the Partnership was formed was that Dorset Traffic officers would be able to concentrate on serious road crime. What happened to them? rayc
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Sat 16 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

2 traffic cops could be anywhere, any time, and would obviously have a positive effect on road safety. No one has been able to provide any evidence that the claimed positive effects of speed cameras outweigh the known negative effects. So, even if 2 traffic cops would not be enough, it would be better than 40 desk jobs pushing paper around and trying to justify their own existence.
2 traffic cops could be anywhere, any time, and would obviously have a positive effect on road safety. No one has been able to provide any evidence that the claimed positive effects of speed cameras outweigh the known negative effects. So, even if 2 traffic cops would not be enough, it would be better than 40 desk jobs pushing paper around and trying to justify their own existence. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Sat 16 Jul 11

indefinable says...

tbpoole wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.
Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.
"people may actually listen to you"
LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers!
I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from?
I'm not agitated - I would like to hear if you have something sensible to say but I've yet to read one post from you that isn't either abusive or condescending to everyone who holds the opposite viewpoint. Join the debate, don't just make yourself sound like a broken record.
I'm agitated, He won my Argos vouchers! :0(.....but back to the original debate has Tezza1965 actually made a point or valid comment about speed camera's yet?
Nope didn't think so!
Perhaps it will have to take him mowing down a pedestrian at high speed before he realises that his moronic views on speed camera's and his reluctance to accept that speed kills will bring him to his senses?
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?[/p][/quote]Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.[/p][/quote]Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.[/p][/quote]"people may actually listen to you" LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers![/p][/quote]I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from?[/p][/quote]I'm not agitated - I would like to hear if you have something sensible to say but I've yet to read one post from you that isn't either abusive or condescending to everyone who holds the opposite viewpoint. Join the debate, don't just make yourself sound like a broken record.[/p][/quote]I'm agitated, He won my Argos vouchers! :0(.....but back to the original debate has Tezza1965 actually made a point or valid comment about speed camera's yet? Nope didn't think so! Perhaps it will have to take him mowing down a pedestrian at high speed before he realises that his moronic views on speed camera's and his reluctance to accept that speed kills will bring him to his senses? indefinable
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Sat 16 Jul 11

udaku says...

no more speeding fines ever again. Easy, satellite speed limiters on all cars. Solved! Why not?
no more speeding fines ever again. Easy, satellite speed limiters on all cars. Solved! Why not? udaku
  • Score: 0

12:00am Sun 17 Jul 11

rayc says...

udaku wrote:
no more speeding fines ever again. Easy, satellite speed limiters on all cars. Solved! Why not?
An enormous expense if they could get it to work with no effect at all on casualty rates.
[quote][p][bold]udaku[/bold] wrote: no more speeding fines ever again. Easy, satellite speed limiters on all cars. Solved! Why not?[/p][/quote]An enormous expense if they could get it to work with no effect at all on casualty rates. rayc
  • Score: 0

12:25am Sun 17 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
2 traffic cops could be anywhere, any time, and would obviously have a positive effect on road safety. No one has been able to provide any evidence that the claimed positive effects of speed cameras outweigh the known negative effects. So, even if 2 traffic cops would not be enough, it would be better than 40 desk jobs pushing paper around and trying to justify their own existence.
So where is your evidence that just 2 traffic cops would have such a significant positive effect? What scientific journal does that appear in or is it just your opinion? If you seriously think that the odd patrol car is the solution then you are deluded.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: 2 traffic cops could be anywhere, any time, and would obviously have a positive effect on road safety. No one has been able to provide any evidence that the claimed positive effects of speed cameras outweigh the known negative effects. So, even if 2 traffic cops would not be enough, it would be better than 40 desk jobs pushing paper around and trying to justify their own existence.[/p][/quote]So where is your evidence that just 2 traffic cops would have such a significant positive effect? What scientific journal does that appear in or is it just your opinion? If you seriously think that the odd patrol car is the solution then you are deluded. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:46am Sun 17 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
“Obviously more damage is caused by an object moving twice as fast.” Well, sort of. What matters is the speed at the instant of contact, this is only loosely related to the free speed before the situation started to develop. Important factors then are attention, distance, avoidance skill, reaction time, road surface, tyres, brakes, etc. It’s easy to spot inattentive drivers leaving inadequate distances, there’s loads of them, entirely ignored by most of our road policing methods. If I was going to come off my bike, I’d prefer the following drivers to be driving up to 70 (or more), but thinking about what they are doing and leaving a safe distance, than just doing 50 because it says so in a red circle and all the road safety people tell them that it’s safe to drive within the limit and it’s dangerous to go over. It’s not true!
" Important factors then are attention, distance, avoidance skill, reaction time, road surface, tyres, brakes, etc. It’s easy to spot inattentive drivers leaving inadequate distances, there’s loads of them, entirely ignored by most of our road policing methods"
Yes but unless they are committing an offence they are unlikely to be 'pulled over' and so may never realise the error of their ways. The police aren't there to ensure that we drive perfectly, but are there to make sure we drive within the law.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: “Obviously more damage is caused by an object moving twice as fast.” Well, sort of. What matters is the speed at the instant of contact, this is only loosely related to the free speed before the situation started to develop. Important factors then are attention, distance, avoidance skill, reaction time, road surface, tyres, brakes, etc. It’s easy to spot inattentive drivers leaving inadequate distances, there’s loads of them, entirely ignored by most of our road policing methods. If I was going to come off my bike, I’d prefer the following drivers to be driving up to 70 (or more), but thinking about what they are doing and leaving a safe distance, than just doing 50 because it says so in a red circle and all the road safety people tell them that it’s safe to drive within the limit and it’s dangerous to go over. It’s not true![/p][/quote]" Important factors then are attention, distance, avoidance skill, reaction time, road surface, tyres, brakes, etc. It’s easy to spot inattentive drivers leaving inadequate distances, there’s loads of them, entirely ignored by most of our road policing methods" Yes but unless they are committing an offence they are unlikely to be 'pulled over' and so may never realise the error of their ways. The police aren't there to ensure that we drive perfectly, but are there to make sure we drive within the law. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

12:53am Sun 17 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
2 traffic cops could be anywhere, any time, and would obviously have a positive effect on road safety. No one has been able to provide any evidence that the claimed positive effects of speed cameras outweigh the known negative effects. So, even if 2 traffic cops would not be enough, it would be better than 40 desk jobs pushing paper around and trying to justify their own existence.
Dorsetspeed, if these two 'traffic cops' see a motorist exceeding the posted speed limit, what, in your opinion, should they do?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: 2 traffic cops could be anywhere, any time, and would obviously have a positive effect on road safety. No one has been able to provide any evidence that the claimed positive effects of speed cameras outweigh the known negative effects. So, even if 2 traffic cops would not be enough, it would be better than 40 desk jobs pushing paper around and trying to justify their own existence.[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed, if these two 'traffic cops' see a motorist exceeding the posted speed limit, what, in your opinion, should they do? Rally
  • Score: 0

9:58am Sun 17 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, you didn't really read what I wrote. I did not say that that 2 cops would have a significant or adequate effect. Just better than the 40 desk (non) jobs at Dorset Road Safe. On your other point, inattentive drivers driving too close are clearly likely to cause an accident, should be stopped and can be, and if necessary charged with undue care and attention. That's proper policing.
tbpoole, you didn't really read what I wrote. I did not say that that 2 cops would have a significant or adequate effect. Just better than the 40 desk (non) jobs at Dorset Road Safe. On your other point, inattentive drivers driving too close are clearly likely to cause an accident, should be stopped and can be, and if necessary charged with undue care and attention. That's proper policing. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:04am Sun 17 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, given that these "2 traffic cops" would be working at a location where there would be REAL community concern, or where speeding was actually dangerous, instead of sitting on the Holes Bay Road for example, because they were motivated by casualty reduction and improving public trust, instead of getting as many people as possible onto courses at £60 profit a time, then they should stop them and give them a fine (as long as nothing more serious was going on at the time).
Rally, given that these "2 traffic cops" would be working at a location where there would be REAL community concern, or where speeding was actually dangerous, instead of sitting on the Holes Bay Road for example, because they were motivated by casualty reduction and improving public trust, instead of getting as many people as possible onto courses at £60 profit a time, then they should stop them and give them a fine (as long as nothing more serious was going on at the time). dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Sun 17 Jul 11

upyourpipe says...

Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use.
They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.
They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.
They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say.
I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.
Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use. They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding. They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road. They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say. I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body. upyourpipe
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Sun 17 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

upyourpipe wrote:
Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use.
They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.
They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.
They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say.
I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.
Except that it is dorsetspeed that is the one trick pony. I've never said what you implied I have said about road safety. I'm just pointing out the error in dorsetspeed's logic.
[quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use. They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding. They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road. They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say. I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.[/p][/quote]Except that it is dorsetspeed that is the one trick pony. I've never said what you implied I have said about road safety. I'm just pointing out the error in dorsetspeed's logic. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Sun 17 Jul 11

Rally says...

upyourpipe wrote:
Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use.
They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.
They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.
They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say.
I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.
Upyourpipe,
All of the comments you make against me here are completely false.
You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe.
However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here.
Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally
insulting comments.
[quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use. They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding. They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road. They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say. I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.[/p][/quote]Upyourpipe, All of the comments you make against me here are completely false. You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe. However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here. Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally insulting comments. Rally
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Sun 17 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
tbpoole, you didn't really read what I wrote. I did not say that that 2 cops would have a significant or adequate effect. Just better than the 40 desk (non) jobs at Dorset Road Safe. On your other point, inattentive drivers driving too close are clearly likely to cause an accident, should be stopped and can be, and if necessary charged with undue care and attention. That's proper policing.
Ok so that is your belief about how effective 2 cops can be, but it is one that can't possibly hold true in reality. And while the point about targeting driving too close may appear valid it could never have that much of an impact on overall accident numbers. I generally find tailgaters are the ones who don't like sticking to the speed limit, otherwise why do they do it? Much better that they have to slow down and then they will have to drive at a safe distance. Oh I forgot, speed isn't an issue!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: tbpoole, you didn't really read what I wrote. I did not say that that 2 cops would have a significant or adequate effect. Just better than the 40 desk (non) jobs at Dorset Road Safe. On your other point, inattentive drivers driving too close are clearly likely to cause an accident, should be stopped and can be, and if necessary charged with undue care and attention. That's proper policing.[/p][/quote]Ok so that is your belief about how effective 2 cops can be, but it is one that can't possibly hold true in reality. And while the point about targeting driving too close may appear valid it could never have that much of an impact on overall accident numbers. I generally find tailgaters are the ones who don't like sticking to the speed limit, otherwise why do they do it? Much better that they have to slow down and then they will have to drive at a safe distance. Oh I forgot, speed isn't an issue! tbpoole
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Sun 17 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, given that these "2 traffic cops" would be working at a location where there would be REAL community concern, or where speeding was actually dangerous, instead of sitting on the Holes Bay Road for example, because they were motivated by casualty reduction and improving public trust, instead of getting as many people as possible onto courses at £60 profit a time, then they should stop them and give them a fine (as long as nothing more serious was going on at the time).
"...given that these "2 traffic cops" would be working at a location where there would be REAL community concern, or where speeding was actually dangerous,..."
And therein, dorsetspeed' lies the rub.
Like it or not, when it comes to "REAL community concern" and "where speeding was actually dangerous,..." we are up against subjectivity.
Whatever decisions are made, somebody is going to disagree with them.
Many (if some of the posters to this forum are to be believed) motorists feel that the 40mph limit on certain stretches of the Wessex Way is too low.
Then there are motorists (such as myself) who are genuinely not bothered by a posted speed limit, regardless of whatever and wherever it may be, and simply do not exceed it.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, given that these "2 traffic cops" would be working at a location where there would be REAL community concern, or where speeding was actually dangerous, instead of sitting on the Holes Bay Road for example, because they were motivated by casualty reduction and improving public trust, instead of getting as many people as possible onto courses at £60 profit a time, then they should stop them and give them a fine (as long as nothing more serious was going on at the time).[/p][/quote]"...given that these "2 traffic cops" would be working at a location where there would be REAL community concern, or where speeding was actually dangerous,..." And therein, dorsetspeed' lies the rub. Like it or not, when it comes to "REAL community concern" and "where speeding was actually dangerous,..." we are up against subjectivity. Whatever decisions are made, somebody is going to disagree with them. Many (if some of the posters to this forum are to be believed) motorists feel that the 40mph limit on certain stretches of the Wessex Way is too low. Then there are motorists (such as myself) who are genuinely not bothered by a posted speed limit, regardless of whatever and wherever it may be, and simply do not exceed it. Rally
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Sun 17 Jul 11

upyourpipe says...

Rally wrote:
upyourpipe wrote:
Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use.
They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.
They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.
They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say.
I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.
Upyourpipe,
All of the comments you make against me here are completely false.
You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe.
However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here.
Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally
insulting comments.
Perhaps you would point out the false statements that you refer too, unless this is forthcoming I wouldn't know if they were false or not.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use. They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding. They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road. They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say. I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.[/p][/quote]Upyourpipe, All of the comments you make against me here are completely false. You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe. However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here. Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally insulting comments.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you would point out the false statements that you refer too, unless this is forthcoming I wouldn't know if they were false or not. upyourpipe
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Sun 17 Jul 11

upyourpipe says...

tbpoole wrote:
upyourpipe wrote:
Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use.
They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.
They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.
They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say.
I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.
Except that it is dorsetspeed that is the one trick pony. I've never said what you implied I have said about road safety. I'm just pointing out the error in dorsetspeed's logic.
I haven't stated that you have said anything, but my perception from your comments is that you appear to think that more and more speed cameras will prevent any further deaths or injuries on our roads, to use your own comment, speed cameras are the one trick pony as they only detect one offence.
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use. They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding. They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road. They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say. I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.[/p][/quote]Except that it is dorsetspeed that is the one trick pony. I've never said what you implied I have said about road safety. I'm just pointing out the error in dorsetspeed's logic.[/p][/quote]I haven't stated that you have said anything, but my perception from your comments is that you appear to think that more and more speed cameras will prevent any further deaths or injuries on our roads, to use your own comment, speed cameras are the one trick pony as they only detect one offence. upyourpipe
  • Score: 0

11:32pm Sun 17 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

tbpoole, I don’t really get your points. You draw your own conclusions about how effective traffic cops can be compared to speed camera staff, and the dangers of driving too close, fair enough, but I don’t agree with you. Yes, tailgaters have to slow down eventually, but that does not mean they are driving at a safe distance!
tbpoole, I don’t really get your points. You draw your own conclusions about how effective traffic cops can be compared to speed camera staff, and the dangers of driving too close, fair enough, but I don’t agree with you. Yes, tailgaters have to slow down eventually, but that does not mean they are driving at a safe distance! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Sun 17 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, REAL community concern is real, unlike the “community concern” that DRS fabricated but were unable to provide any evidence for for the greed on green cam. Speed limit inconsistencies are widespread, such as the 30 on Holes Bay and the 50 through the busy PC World shopping area. Nothing subjective about these statements, just common sense. These fundamental problems with credibility of DRS and speed limits need to be resolved before proper consideration can be given to the importance of zero tolerance compliance with speed limits. Then, consideration can be given to the methods of enforcement, of which yellow boxes have to be the most ridiculous and most ineffective!
Rally, REAL community concern is real, unlike the “community concern” that DRS fabricated but were unable to provide any evidence for for the greed on green cam. Speed limit inconsistencies are widespread, such as the 30 on Holes Bay and the 50 through the busy PC World shopping area. Nothing subjective about these statements, just common sense. These fundamental problems with credibility of DRS and speed limits need to be resolved before proper consideration can be given to the importance of zero tolerance compliance with speed limits. Then, consideration can be given to the methods of enforcement, of which yellow boxes have to be the most ridiculous and most ineffective! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:59am Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

upyourpipe wrote:
Rally wrote:
upyourpipe wrote:
Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use.
They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.
They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.
They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say.
I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.
Upyourpipe,
All of the comments you make against me here are completely false.
You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe.
However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here.
Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally
insulting comments.
Perhaps you would point out the false statements that you refer too, unless this is forthcoming I wouldn't know if they were false or not.
Hello Upyourpipe,
1) I am not “an avid supporter of speed cameras…”
2) I do not “subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.”
3) I am not “quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.”
4) I do not “goad by asking questions about comments because too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of little yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
5) My attitude towards speed cameras, etc., is not at all “complacent".
6) I am not “trolling” – my posts to this forum are comparatively few and far between.

As for your comment, “I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.”
I have never in any way at all likened motorists who exceed the posted speed limit to motorists who drink-and-drive.
I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded.
[quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use. They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding. They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road. They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say. I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.[/p][/quote]Upyourpipe, All of the comments you make against me here are completely false. You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe. However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here. Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally insulting comments.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you would point out the false statements that you refer too, unless this is forthcoming I wouldn't know if they were false or not.[/p][/quote]Hello Upyourpipe, 1) I am not “an avid supporter[s] of speed cameras…” 2) I do not “subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.” 3) I am not “quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.” 4) I do not “goad [dorsetspeed] by asking questions about [his] comments because [I am] too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of little yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. 5) My attitude towards speed cameras, etc., is not at all “complacent". 6) I am not “trolling” – my posts to this forum are comparatively few and far between. As for your comment, “I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.” I have never in any way at all likened motorists who exceed the posted speed limit to motorists who drink-and-drive. I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded. Rally
  • Score: 0

2:11am Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, REAL community concern is real, unlike the “community concern” that DRS fabricated but were unable to provide any evidence for for the greed on green cam. Speed limit inconsistencies are widespread, such as the 30 on Holes Bay and the 50 through the busy PC World shopping area. Nothing subjective about these statements, just common sense. These fundamental problems with credibility of DRS and speed limits need to be resolved before proper consideration can be given to the importance of zero tolerance compliance with speed limits. Then, consideration can be given to the methods of enforcement, of which yellow boxes have to be the most ridiculous and most ineffective!
Hello Dorsetspeed,

In your opinion, which of these two statements is the most accurate?

1) Higher speeds equals fewer accidents.

2) Lower speeds equals fewer accidents.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, REAL community concern is real, unlike the “community concern” that DRS fabricated but were unable to provide any evidence for for the greed on green cam. Speed limit inconsistencies are widespread, such as the 30 on Holes Bay and the 50 through the busy PC World shopping area. Nothing subjective about these statements, just common sense. These fundamental problems with credibility of DRS and speed limits need to be resolved before proper consideration can be given to the importance of zero tolerance compliance with speed limits. Then, consideration can be given to the methods of enforcement, of which yellow boxes have to be the most ridiculous and most ineffective![/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, In your opinion, which of these two statements is the most accurate? 1) Higher speeds equals fewer accidents. 2) Lower speeds equals fewer accidents. Rally
  • Score: 0

8:45am Mon 18 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, whatever direction you try to take this discussion in you won’t show that DRS is doing a good job because it is not. Below a certain point, it obviously becomes difficult to have any kind of accident / injury (although a vehicle travelling more slowly than others around it clearly presents a risk). And danger rises rapidly as you approach the point that a vehicle may not be able to make a bend, or stop safely in the space that is clear and available in front of it. This leaves a vast plateau between the 2, where if you change nothing else, the risk of accident may increase gently with speed, and the severity of accident increases sharply with the speed AT THE INSTANT OF CONTACT. But severity can be almost irrelevant if there is no risk, and because there are in fact many other factors, looking only at speed is will give you the wrong answers. For example, leaving a 2 second gap instead of a 1/2 second gap will result in a much lower risk than purely driving at 40 instead of 50 on a perfectly good straight road. Driving at little faster can improve attention. Attention improves reaction which might mean a potential accident is avoided altogether. There are many other points that have been made over and over again.
But despite all this, your simplistic question, if used to establish a speed limit, would only allow 1 result: The target is 0 accidents so the correct limit for all roads is 0. I wish it were not the case but road safety must accept that there will be accidents and that all decisions are therefore compromises. As the compromise includes people dying, this is why it is so important that it is right, and Dorset is showing the worst possible decision making on road safety in all respects, but most significantly on speed limits and enforcements, and refuses to answer the hundreds of concerns raised, including those that suggest that people are dying who would not if DRS were thinking more about saving life than money. This is why it is right to raise awareness of this and continue to encourage Dorset to do better.
Rally, whatever direction you try to take this discussion in you won’t show that DRS is doing a good job because it is not. Below a certain point, it obviously becomes difficult to have any kind of accident / injury (although a vehicle travelling more slowly than others around it clearly presents a risk). And danger rises rapidly as you approach the point that a vehicle may not be able to make a bend, or stop safely in the space that is clear and available in front of it. This leaves a vast plateau between the 2, where if you change nothing else, the risk of accident may increase gently with speed, and the severity of accident increases sharply with the speed AT THE INSTANT OF CONTACT. But severity can be almost irrelevant if there is no risk, and because there are in fact many other factors, looking only at speed is will give you the wrong answers. For example, leaving a 2 second gap instead of a 1/2 second gap will result in a much lower risk than purely driving at 40 instead of 50 on a perfectly good straight road. Driving at little faster can improve attention. Attention improves reaction which might mean a potential accident is avoided altogether. There are many other points that have been made over and over again. But despite all this, your simplistic question, if used to establish a speed limit, would only allow 1 result: The target is 0 accidents so the correct limit for all roads is 0. I wish it were not the case but road safety must accept that there will be accidents and that all decisions are therefore compromises. As the compromise includes people dying, this is why it is so important that it is right, and Dorset is showing the worst possible decision making on road safety in all respects, but most significantly on speed limits and enforcements, and refuses to answer the hundreds of concerns raised, including those that suggest that people are dying who would not if DRS were thinking more about saving life than money. This is why it is right to raise awareness of this and continue to encourage Dorset to do better. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:04am Mon 18 Jul 11

Tezza1965 says...

indefinable wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
Tezza1965 wrote:
indefinable wrote:
What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes!
You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.
Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize?
Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed!
My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions.
Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?
Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.
Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.
"people may actually listen to you"
LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers!
I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from?
I'm not agitated - I would like to hear if you have something sensible to say but I've yet to read one post from you that isn't either abusive or condescending to everyone who holds the opposite viewpoint. Join the debate, don't just make yourself sound like a broken record.
I'm agitated, He won my Argos vouchers! :0(.....but back to the original debate has Tezza1965 actually made a point or valid comment about speed camera's yet?
Nope didn't think so!
Perhaps it will have to take him mowing down a pedestrian at high speed before he realises that his moronic views on speed camera's and his reluctance to accept that speed kills will bring him to his senses?
You and tbpoole really are a couple of total morons. Perhaps you think the national speed limit should be 15mph, or even better that someone should walk in front of every vehicle with a red flag to warn pedestrians like they did 100+ years ago.
And I have been driving safely for over 30 years and have no intention of mowing down pedestrians at high speed.
If you're going to reply try to make your comments valid instead of just more juvenile ad hominems ok.
[quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tezza1965[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]indefinable[/bold] wrote: What a Shame! I think every road should have a speed camera on it and the moronic drivers who are incapable of driving under the limit or the selfish prats who think they are above the law can keep on paying fines which should go into the country's coffers to hep towards our taxes![/p][/quote]You clearly either don't drive or think the nanny state should rule every part of our lives! Your comment is quite frankly the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today.[/p][/quote]Yeah "the most ridiculous one posted on this thread today" do I win a prize? Obviously a speed camera on every road is a ridiculous idea, but I hate the bleating of morons who get caught speeding and moan about the fine and where is goes! it you feel that strongly don't speed...simples! but I doubt very much that these people that moan about gatso's have the common sense not to speed! My point is they could put speed camera's on every road in the uk and I among with others would still not get fined because we drive within the speed restrictions. Re: the prize can i have argos vouchers?[/p][/quote]Yes you do win a prize... for being the most sanctimonious pillock on this forum for a long time. Moron.[/p][/quote]Yes and you, Tezza1965, win a prize for never failing to resort to vitriolic comments each time , plus a special mention for believing your own clap-trap you spout continuously. Not very nice being on the receiving end? Well come back with some reasoned logical comments next time and people may actually listen to you.[/p][/quote]"people may actually listen to you" LOL well you obviously did otherwise you wouldn't have responded! I guess from your response your one of the many that has been fined for speeding and extremely upset that you have to pay a fine? Perhaps you think that your above the law? your obviously the best driver there is and speed laws shouldn't apply to you..Well done you may have my Argos vouchers![/p][/quote]I find it amusing that "tbpoole" and "indefinable" get so agitated at my comments. Clearly my pointing out the obvious doesn't sit too well with them! Or perhaps you're both employees of DRS and are fearful for your jobs as more and more people wise up to the scam you are profiting from?[/p][/quote]I'm not agitated - I would like to hear if you have something sensible to say but I've yet to read one post from you that isn't either abusive or condescending to everyone who holds the opposite viewpoint. Join the debate, don't just make yourself sound like a broken record.[/p][/quote]I'm agitated, He won my Argos vouchers! :0(.....but back to the original debate has Tezza1965 actually made a point or valid comment about speed camera's yet? Nope didn't think so! Perhaps it will have to take him mowing down a pedestrian at high speed before he realises that his moronic views on speed camera's and his reluctance to accept that speed kills will bring him to his senses?[/p][/quote]You and tbpoole really are a couple of total morons. Perhaps you think the national speed limit should be 15mph, or even better that someone should walk in front of every vehicle with a red flag to warn pedestrians like they did 100+ years ago. And I have been driving safely for over 30 years and have no intention of mowing down pedestrians at high speed. If you're going to reply try to make your comments valid instead of just more juvenile ad hominems ok. Tezza1965
  • Score: 0

10:02am Mon 18 Jul 11

upyourpipe says...

Rally wrote:
upyourpipe wrote:
Rally wrote:
upyourpipe wrote:
Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use.
They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.
They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.
They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say.
I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.
Upyourpipe,
All of the comments you make against me here are completely false.
You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe.
However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here.
Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally
insulting comments.
Perhaps you would point out the false statements that you refer too, unless this is forthcoming I wouldn't know if they were false or not.
Hello Upyourpipe,
1) I am not “an avid supporter of speed cameras…”
2) I do not “subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.”
3) I am not “quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.”
4) I do not “goad by asking questions about comments because too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of little yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver.
5) My attitude towards speed cameras, etc., is not at all “complacent".
6) I am not “trolling” – my posts to this forum are comparatively few and far between.

As for your comment, “I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.”
I have never in any way at all likened motorists who exceed the posted speed limit to motorists who drink-and-drive.
I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded.
In reply to your points, point 1, your constant denial that traffic police could do a better job than a yellow box monitoring 30 feet of road leads me to believe that you think speed cameras will solve the road safety problem.
Point 2, when does speed become excessive or a killer, when your 2 mph over the limit or 30mph over the limit, none of your comments that I have read blame any other offence for ksi other than speeding.
Point 3, If you are not happy that drunk drivers can go through a speed camera and not get caught then why the fixation with these things that only detect one single offence.
Point 4, your most recent comment to Dorsetspeed says it all " In your opinion, which of these two statements is the most accurate?

1) Higher speeds equals fewer accidents.

2) Lower speeds equals fewer accidents.
I ask again when does speed become a killer 2 mph or 30mph over the limit.
The stupid law in this country allows drivers to put away a couple of pints of booze before becoming a drunk driver, why the discrepancy, why the allowance on booze but not on speed.
Point 5, support of cameras that only patrol 30 feet of road to control ksi rather than proper effective traffic policing says to me that you and people like you think that these things solve the whole problem, in that case they are deluded.
With the hundreds of offences drivers can be prosecuted for which are a danger to others why rely on just one machine to detect just one offence.
Your final comment says it all about speed camera supporters, I have never likened speeding motorists to drunk drivers either as I believe that they are more of a danger to others than someone going 2 mph over the speed limit, most drink drivers are never caught just as other offences are never detected because of the complacent fixation with speed cameras.
You say "I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded", well that's your opinion, just as it is my opinion and perception of your comments posted on this forum.
If anybody was concerned about road safety they would be lobbying their councils and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing to catch not only the most prolific speeders but all the other dangerous maniacs that use our roads, not to criminalise drivers that stray over the limit by a couple of miles per hour and brand them potential killers and not to portray or use road safety as a revenue raising exercise.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]upyourpipe[/bold] wrote: Dorsetspeed, I dont know why you enter into conversation with the likes of Rally and tbpoole who are both avid supporters of speed cameras even though there is no impact on road safety through their use. They also subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding. They seem quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road. They also goad you by asking questions about your comments because they are too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of litle yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. My advice to you is to treat these two, and others with the same complacent attitude, with the contempt they deserve and stop giving them ammunition to continue trolling on here as they have become quite repetitive, predictable and boring, then they may do us all a favor and get fed up, go away, and preach to someone who really gives a dam about what they have to say. I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.[/p][/quote]Upyourpipe, All of the comments you make against me here are completely false. You are free, of course, to criticise my views on speed cameras, etc., or indeed any other subject matter, Upyourpipe. However, you are not free to make a string of blantantly false statements about my comments as you have done here. Please cite any post of mine that says unequivocally what you assert, or, alternatively, have the common decency to withdraw your generally insulting comments.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you would point out the false statements that you refer too, unless this is forthcoming I wouldn't know if they were false or not.[/p][/quote]Hello Upyourpipe, 1) I am not “an avid supporter[s] of speed cameras…” 2) I do not “subscribe to the view that every body is killed or injured only by speeding drivers and not drivers committing more serious offences other than speeding.” 3) I am not “quite happy that drunk and drugged up drivers can go through a speed camera at the correct speed limit and get away scott free to kill someone else further up the road.” 4) I do not “goad [dorsetspeed] by asking questions about [his] comments because [I am] too deluded and stupid to come up with better idea's to make the roads safer other than the use of little yellow boxes tasked with detecting only one offence when in reality police officers on numerous occasions detect multiple offences after stopping a speeding driver. 5) My attitude towards speed cameras, etc., is not at all “complacent". 6) I am not “trolling” – my posts to this forum are comparatively few and far between. As for your comment, “I wonder what people like these two would have to say if it was announced that all breath testing for drunk drivers was to be abolished from midnight tonight, the answer is nothing as in their world only speeding drivers cause death and injury, drunk drivers in their world kill no body.” I have never in any way at all likened motorists who exceed the posted speed limit to motorists who drink-and-drive. I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded.[/p][/quote]In reply to your points, point 1, your constant denial that traffic police could do a better job than a yellow box monitoring 30 feet of road leads me to believe that you think speed cameras will solve the road safety problem. Point 2, when does speed become excessive or a killer, when your 2 mph over the limit or 30mph over the limit, none of your comments that I have read blame any other offence for ksi other than speeding. Point 3, If you are not happy that drunk drivers can go through a speed camera and not get caught then why the fixation with these things that only detect one single offence. Point 4, your most recent comment to Dorsetspeed says it all " In your opinion, which of these two statements is the most accurate? 1) Higher speeds equals fewer accidents. 2) Lower speeds equals fewer accidents. I ask again when does speed become a killer 2 mph or 30mph over the limit. The stupid law in this country allows drivers to put away a couple of pints of booze before becoming a drunk driver, why the discrepancy, why the allowance on booze but not on speed. Point 5, support of cameras that only patrol 30 feet of road to control ksi rather than proper effective traffic policing says to me that you and people like you think that these things solve the whole problem, in that case they are deluded. With the hundreds of offences drivers can be prosecuted for which are a danger to others why rely on just one machine to detect just one offence. Your final comment says it all about speed camera supporters, I have never likened speeding motorists to drunk drivers either as I believe that they are more of a danger to others than someone going 2 mph over the speed limit, most drink drivers are never caught just as other offences are never detected because of the complacent fixation with speed cameras. You say "I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded", well that's your opinion, just as it is my opinion and perception of your comments posted on this forum. If anybody was concerned about road safety they would be lobbying their councils and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing to catch not only the most prolific speeders but all the other dangerous maniacs that use our roads, not to criminalise drivers that stray over the limit by a couple of miles per hour and brand them potential killers and not to portray or use road safety as a revenue raising exercise. upyourpipe
  • Score: 0

10:05am Mon 18 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

The Liberal wrote:
dorsetspeed:“Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones?”
That's utter rubbish. The police target all offences on the road, serious and minor alike. They patrol the roads and if they spot someone breaking the law, they stop them. What's wrong with that?
Too true The Liberal. We all see people committing "trivial" offences every day, and complain the laws are not enforced. Not just restricted to motoring either.

Dorset Speed, I agree with the majority of your campaign. I understand what you are saying, but to me, some of your arguments come across weak. Not wearing a seatbelt to drive round a corner, you need to wear a seatbelt lawfully drive. Holding a mobile phone in slow moving traffic. It is illegal to hold a mobile phone when driving. If there is no enforcement, there is no law!

Have you seen some of the excuses people try to come up with when caught? That's why the law has to be black and white. How many of those "using a mobile phone in slow moving traffic" have used it many times before, in faster moving traffic and not caught? Or may be tempted to use it again because they weren't caught?

I agree with your argument that "speed cameras" do not "effectively police" the roads. I agree with you in principle, that the percentages of so-called-trivial-of
fences, against the percentage of so-called-serious-of
fences is unbalanced. But in order to tackle problems, there has to be public support. This is the only way the No Excuses will be extended, and motoring will become safer. There is no instant, magic wand. Sometimes, lowering speed limits, causes further problems that need further policing. (inconsistent driving speeds, tailgating and intimidation, dangerous heavy braking, unlawful overtaking on inside lanes to weave in and out traffic to get ahead of road users that are abiding by the law for example) It all takes time. I agree there are a whole load of "what if" offences, like using mobile phones, but they become offences because of horrendous consequences. I'm sure there are some people, who do not see using a mobile phone whilst driving, a trivial offence, when they have lost someone, or been seriously injured because of it.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]dorsetspeed:“Why do you target only trivial, harmless offences, not serious dangerous ones?”[/quote] That's utter rubbish. The police target all offences on the road, serious and minor alike. They patrol the roads and if they spot someone breaking the law, they stop them. What's wrong with that?[/p][/quote]Too true The Liberal. We all see people committing "trivial" offences every day, and complain the laws are not enforced. Not just restricted to motoring either. Dorset Speed, I agree with the majority of your campaign. I understand what you are saying, but to me, some of your arguments come across weak. Not wearing a seatbelt to drive round a corner, you need to wear a seatbelt lawfully drive. Holding a mobile phone in slow moving traffic. It is illegal to hold a mobile phone when driving. If there is no enforcement, there is no law! Have you seen some of the excuses people try to come up with when caught? That's why the law has to be black and white. How many of those "using a mobile phone in slow moving traffic" have used it many times before, in faster moving traffic and not caught? Or may be tempted to use it again because they weren't caught? I agree with your argument that "speed cameras" do not "effectively police" the roads. I agree with you in principle, that the percentages of so-called-trivial-of fences, against the percentage of so-called-serious-of fences is unbalanced. But in order to tackle problems, there has to be public support. This is the only way the No Excuses will be extended, and motoring will become safer. There is no instant, magic wand. Sometimes, lowering speed limits, causes further problems that need further policing. (inconsistent driving speeds, tailgating and intimidation, dangerous heavy braking, unlawful overtaking on inside lanes to weave in and out traffic to get ahead of road users that are abiding by the law for example) It all takes time. I agree there are a whole load of "what if" offences, like using mobile phones, but they become offences because of horrendous consequences. I'm sure there are some people, who do not see using a mobile phone whilst driving, a trivial offence, when they have lost someone, or been seriously injured because of it. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

10:23am Mon 18 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

PooleBabe, there are clearly 2 different things going on: what needs to be done to control dangerous behaviour, and the point of obeying the law. The ideal scenario is that laws would be optimised and implemented in such a way as to most effectively control dangerous behaviour, then there would be little conflict and most of us would be happy. But use of the law has been distorted by the financial motivations to control the least dangerous behaviour, that is the problem. Of course many have been horribly killed and injured largely because of distraction due to a phone. But think about it, for example it is legal to operate a phone in a cradle, which can be just as bad. So it is right to challenge what does not seem right. I am not saying it’s ok to use a phone when driving slowly or to break the law. I’m only saying that focussing on behaviour which in practice is not very dangerous is not as productive in saving live as focussing on behaviour which obviously is.
PooleBabe, there are clearly 2 different things going on: what needs to be done to control dangerous behaviour, and the point of obeying the law. The ideal scenario is that laws would be optimised and implemented in such a way as to most effectively control dangerous behaviour, then there would be little conflict and most of us would be happy. But use of the law has been distorted by the financial motivations to control the least dangerous behaviour, that is the problem. Of course many have been horribly killed and injured largely because of distraction due to a phone. But think about it, for example it is legal to operate a phone in a cradle, which can be just as bad. So it is right to challenge what does not seem right. I am not saying it’s ok to use a phone when driving slowly or to break the law. I’m only saying that focussing on behaviour which in practice is not very dangerous is not as productive in saving live as focussing on behaviour which obviously is. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:37am Mon 18 Jul 11

The Liberal says...

dorsetspeed, two wrongs don't make a right: if phones in cradles are just as bad as handheld ones (as you claim), then their use should also be banned. Why do instead campaign for handheld phone use to be effectively legalised (by the police turning a blind eye)? It seems a bizarre kind of logic to me.
dorsetspeed, two wrongs don't make a right: if phones in cradles are just as bad as handheld ones (as you claim), then their use should also be banned. Why do instead campaign for handheld phone use to be effectively legalised (by the police turning a blind eye)? It seems a bizarre kind of logic to me. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

10:50am Mon 18 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

The liberal, please detail where I have said that it is right to break the law and use a handheld phone. No, I am asking for law and it's application to be better aligned to delivering safety.
The liberal, please detail where I have said that it is right to break the law and use a handheld phone. No, I am asking for law and it's application to be better aligned to delivering safety. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

11:28am Mon 18 Jul 11

rach74 says...

can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph rach74
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

Hello Upyourpipe,
You wrote, “Point 1, your constant denial that traffic police could do a better job than a yellow box monitoring 30 feet of road leads me to believe that you think speed cameras will solve the road safety problem.”
I have never denied this. Please reference a post by me that states or implies otherwise.
Speed cameras are designed to complete a single task, i.e. to detect vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit; it is nonsensical to compare them to a traffic police patrol that has, through its very nature, the abilities to detect a number of different motoring offences.

You wrote, “Point 2, when does speed become excessive or a killer, when your 2 mph over the limit or 30mph over the limit,”
The speed is excessive the moment it is greater than the posted speed limit.
I suggest that you are failing to distinguish between exceeding the posted speed limit and driving at a speed inappropriate for the prevailing conditions.
I suggest also that you tend to see the posted speed limit as a target and not as what it actually is, i.e. a limit.
As for when speed becomes a killer, it is impossible to say. A person can be killed through being knocked over in a car park by a slow moving vehicle (walking speed or less) just as somebody could be killed by being hit head-on by a vehicle travelling at 120mph.

You wrote, “… none of your comments that I have read blame any other offence for ksi other than speeding.”
Then please cite a single post by me that blames only speeding for KSI.

You wrote, "Point 3, If you are not happy that drunk drivers can go through a speed camera and not get caught then why the fixation with these things that only detect one single offence."

I do not have, and never have had, a fixation with speed cameras.
What I am concerned about (but certainly not to the degree of it being a fixation) are motorists who think that the Highway Code does not apply to them, and indulge selfishly in anti-social behaviour - such as habitually exceeding the posted speed-limit for more than a few seconds.

You wrote, “… Point 4, your most recent comment to Dorsetspeed says it all " In your opinion, which of these two statements is the most accurate?

1) Higher speeds equals fewer accidents.

2) Lower speeds equals fewer accidents.
I ask again when does speed become a killer 2 mph or 30mph over the limit?”

See above

You wrote, “The stupid law in this country allows drivers to put away a couple of pints of booze before becoming a drunk driver, why the discrepancy, why the allowance on booze but not on speed.”

IMO, there should be a total ban on drink-driving – no alcohol at all if driving.
As for speed, it is actually quite easy to not exceed the posted speed limit for more than a few seconds – don’t see the limit as a target; drop your speed to a few mph below the posted limit, but avoid obstructing any motorist who wants to drive faster than you are.

You wrote, “Point 5, support of cameras that only patrol 30 feet of road to control ksi rather than proper effective traffic policing says to me that you and people like you think that these things solve the whole problem, in that case they are deluded.

Please cite a single post by me in which I have said or implied that speed cameras are better than “proper effective traffic policing”.

You wrote, “With the hundreds of offences drivers can be prosecuted for which are a danger to others why rely on just one machine to detect just one offence.”

I am not convinced that there is a general over-reliance on speed cameras when it comes to reducing the KSI, but this is only because I view statistics with some scepticism.

You wrote, “… Your final comment says it all about speed camera supporters, I have never likened speeding motorists to drunk drivers either as I believe that they are more of a danger to others than someone going 2 mph over the speed limit, most drink drivers are never caught just as other offences are never detected because of the complacent fixation with speed cameras.”

Drunk drivers are indeed a far, far greater danger to themselves and others than a motorist driving at a couple of mph over the posted speed limit.
But this fact should not be allowed to excuse such speeding.

You wrote, “… You say "I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded", well that's your opinion, just as it is my opinion and perception of your comments posted on this forum.”

I suspect that your opinion and perception is based more on what others have erroneously posted about me and my views (step forward Tessa1965, amongst others… :) ) than what I have actually posted.

You wrote, “If anybody was concerned about road safety they would be lobbying their councils and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing to catch not only the most prolific speeders but all the other dangerous maniacs that use our roads, not to criminalise drivers that stray over the limit by a couple of miles per hour and brand them potential killers and not to portray or use road safety as a revenue raising exercise.”

May I then take it that you yourself are actively, vigorously, and robustly lobbying your Local Council and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing?
If you are doing so, then perhaps you could let us know how you are getting on with it…
Hello Upyourpipe, You wrote, “Point 1, your constant denial that traffic police could do a better job than a yellow box monitoring 30 feet of road leads me to believe that you think speed cameras will solve the road safety problem.” I have never denied this. Please reference a post by me that states or implies otherwise. Speed cameras are designed to complete a single task, i.e. to detect vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit; it is nonsensical to compare them to a traffic police patrol that has, through its very nature, the abilities to detect a number of different motoring offences. You wrote, “Point 2, when does speed become excessive or a killer, when your 2 mph over the limit or 30mph over the limit,” The speed is excessive the moment it is greater than the posted speed limit. I suggest that you are failing to distinguish between exceeding the posted speed limit and driving at a speed inappropriate for the prevailing conditions. I suggest also that you tend to see the posted speed limit as a target and not as what it actually is, i.e. a limit. As for when speed becomes a killer, it is impossible to say. A person can be killed through being knocked over in a car park by a slow moving vehicle (walking speed or less) just as somebody could be killed by being hit head-on by a vehicle travelling at 120mph. You wrote, “… none of your comments that I have read blame any other offence for ksi other than speeding.” Then please cite a single post by me that blames only speeding for KSI. You wrote, "Point 3, If you are not happy that drunk drivers can go through a speed camera and not get caught then why the fixation with these things that only detect one single offence." I do not have, and never have had, a fixation with speed cameras. What I am concerned about (but certainly not to the degree of it being a fixation) are motorists who think that the Highway Code does not apply to them, and indulge selfishly in anti-social behaviour - such as habitually exceeding the posted speed-limit for more than a few seconds. You wrote, “… Point 4, your most recent comment to Dorsetspeed says it all " In your opinion, which of these two statements is the most accurate? 1) Higher speeds equals fewer accidents. 2) Lower speeds equals fewer accidents. I ask again when does speed become a killer 2 mph or 30mph over the limit?” See above You wrote, “The stupid law in this country allows drivers to put away a couple of pints of booze before becoming a drunk driver, why the discrepancy, why the allowance on booze but not on speed.” IMO, there should be a total ban on drink-driving – no alcohol at all if driving. As for speed, it is actually quite easy to not exceed the posted speed limit for more than a few seconds – don’t see the limit as a target; drop your speed to a few mph below the posted limit, but avoid obstructing any motorist who wants to drive faster than you are. You wrote, “Point 5, support of cameras that only patrol 30 feet of road to control ksi rather than proper effective traffic policing says to me that you and people like you think that these things solve the whole problem, in that case they are deluded. Please cite a single post by me in which I have said or implied that speed cameras are better than “proper effective traffic policing”. You wrote, “With the hundreds of offences drivers can be prosecuted for which are a danger to others why rely on just one machine to detect just one offence.” I am not convinced that there is a general over-reliance on speed cameras when it comes to reducing the KSI, but this is only because I view statistics with some scepticism. You wrote, “… Your final comment says it all about speed camera supporters, I have never likened speeding motorists to drunk drivers either as I believe that they are more of a danger to others than someone going 2 mph over the speed limit, most drink drivers are never caught just as other offences are never detected because of the complacent fixation with speed cameras.” Drunk drivers are indeed a far, far greater danger to themselves and others than a motorist driving at a couple of mph over the posted speed limit. But this fact should not be allowed to excuse such speeding. You wrote, “… You say "I find your comment to be extraordinarily stupid, deeply offensive, and totally unfounded", well that's your opinion, just as it is my opinion and perception of your comments posted on this forum.” I suspect that your opinion and perception is based more on what others have erroneously posted about me and my views (step forward Tessa1965, amongst others… :) ) than what I have actually posted. You wrote, “If anybody was concerned about road safety they would be lobbying their councils and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing to catch not only the most prolific speeders but all the other dangerous maniacs that use our roads, not to criminalise drivers that stray over the limit by a couple of miles per hour and brand them potential killers and not to portray or use road safety as a revenue raising exercise.” May I then take it that you yourself are actively, vigorously, and robustly lobbying your Local Council and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing? If you are doing so, then perhaps you could let us know how you are getting on with it… Rally
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

rach74 wrote:
can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
Hello rach74,

Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.
[quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph[/p][/quote]Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver. Rally
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Mon 18 Jul 11

rach74 says...

Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.
no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph[/p][/quote]Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.[/p][/quote]no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there rach74
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Mon 18 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

"May I then take it that you yourself are actively, vigorously, and robustly lobbying your Local Council and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing?
If you are doing so, then perhaps you could let us know how you are getting on with it…"
I've been doing that for years, getting nowhere, they consider themselves above communicating with the public and are quite happy keeping the income they are currently making
"May I then take it that you yourself are actively, vigorously, and robustly lobbying your Local Council and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing? If you are doing so, then perhaps you could let us know how you are getting on with it…" I've been doing that for years, getting nowhere, they consider themselves above communicating with the public and are quite happy keeping the income they are currently making dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.
no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there
So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more?
Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over?
As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...
[quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph[/p][/quote]Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.[/p][/quote]no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there[/p][/quote]So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped... Rally
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
"May I then take it that you yourself are actively, vigorously, and robustly lobbying your Local Council and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing?
If you are doing so, then perhaps you could let us know how you are getting on with it…"
I've been doing that for years, getting nowhere, they consider themselves above communicating with the public and are quite happy keeping the income they are currently making
"... they consider themselves above communicating with the public and are quite happy keeping the income they are currently making."

I see, Dorsetspeed, so it is not a case of your approach being wrong in some way, or possibly that they think - like many who post here - you are actually only interested in having speed limits increased and are letting road safety take second place to this?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "May I then take it that you yourself are actively, vigorously, and robustly lobbying your Local Council and government to bring back proper effective traffic policing? If you are doing so, then perhaps you could let us know how you are getting on with it…" I've been doing that for years, getting nowhere, they consider themselves above communicating with the public and are quite happy keeping the income they are currently making[/p][/quote]"... they consider themselves above communicating with the public and are quite happy keeping the income they are currently making." I see, Dorsetspeed, so it is not a case of your approach being wrong in some way, or possibly that they think - like many who post here - you are actually only interested in having speed limits increased and are letting road safety take second place to this? Rally
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Mon 18 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

I'm happy to debate with you Rally, but only if you're going to be sensible
I'm happy to debate with you Rally, but only if you're going to be sensible dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
I'm happy to debate with you Rally, but only if you're going to be sensible
For "only if you're going to be sensible" read "only if you're going to agree with me"
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I'm happy to debate with you Rally, but only if you're going to be sensible[/p][/quote]For "only if you're going to be sensible" read "only if you're going to agree with me" Rally
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Mon 18 Jul 11

rach74 says...

Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.
no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there
So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...
yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph[/p][/quote]Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.[/p][/quote]no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there[/p][/quote]So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...[/p][/quote]yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit rach74
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.
no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there
So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...
yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit
Hello Rach74,
IMO, you would do well to go on an advanced driving course.
[quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph[/p][/quote]Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.[/p][/quote]no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there[/p][/quote]So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...[/p][/quote]yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit[/p][/quote]Hello Rach74, IMO, you would do well to go on an advanced driving course. Rally
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Mon 18 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
I'm happy to debate with you Rally, but only if you're going to be sensible
Perhaps it's time you started being sensible dorsetspeed and putting forward arguments that actually stand up to scrutiny, rather than just disagreeing with everyone who holds the opposing viewpoint. There is nothing you've put forward here that convinces me you have found a 'magic bullet' so I'm not surprised no-one in authority chooses not to listen to your suggestions either.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: I'm happy to debate with you Rally, but only if you're going to be sensible[/p][/quote]Perhaps it's time you started being sensible dorsetspeed and putting forward arguments that actually stand up to scrutiny, rather than just disagreeing with everyone who holds the opposing viewpoint. There is nothing you've put forward here that convinces me you have found a 'magic bullet' so I'm not surprised no-one in authority chooses not to listen to your suggestions either. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Mon 18 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

sorry I meant to say "so I'm not surprised no-one in authority chooses to listen to your suggestions either".
sorry I meant to say "so I'm not surprised no-one in authority chooses to listen to your suggestions either". tbpoole
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Mon 18 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.
You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Mon 18 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police? Rally
  • Score: 0

8:21am Tue 19 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean.
It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:26am Tue 19 Jul 11

rach74 says...

Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.
no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there
So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...
yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit
Hello Rach74, IMO, you would do well to go on an advanced driving course.
so glad Rally you choose to pick on me, why do you not go on and advanced driving course?, how long have you been driving? judging by what you post i do not know why you drive at all, you must be one of these that are at the front of every hold up as cannot read the signs telling you the speeds on roads, yes advanced driving course for you
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph[/p][/quote]Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.[/p][/quote]no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there[/p][/quote]So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...[/p][/quote]yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit[/p][/quote]Hello Rach74, IMO, you would do well to go on an advanced driving course.[/p][/quote]so glad Rally you choose to pick on me, why do you not go on and advanced driving course?, how long have you been driving? judging by what you post i do not know why you drive at all, you must be one of these that are at the front of every hold up as cannot read the signs telling you the speeds on roads, yes advanced driving course for you rach74
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Rally says...

rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote:
Rally wrote:
rach74 wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph
Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.
no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there
So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...
yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit
Hello Rach74, IMO, you would do well to go on an advanced driving course.
so glad Rally you choose to pick on me, why do you not go on and advanced driving course?, how long have you been driving? judging by what you post i do not know why you drive at all, you must be one of these that are at the front of every hold up as cannot read the signs telling you the speeds on roads, yes advanced driving course for you
Hello Rach74,

It's your apparent attitude towards posted speed limits that I am concerned with here, not you as a person - no ad hominem was intended.
[quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rach74[/bold] wrote: can we catch the people that cant do the limit as these people cause accidents as well, i was behind a moped on the dorset way and he was doing 25mph couldnt overtake as the lane was full, also through ferndown its 40mph and people cant even seem to get to 30mph and they wonder why you tailgate them, they need to read the signs saying 40mph[/p][/quote]Hello rach74, Your post implies that you are a very impatient driver.[/p][/quote]no not at all, just someone that can drive to the speed limit, they all say about catching people that speed but in my opinion they should catch the people that are drivin under speed as well, if you can only do 25mph on dual carriageway then you should not be on there[/p][/quote]So, Rach74, are you saying that if you are travelling at the posted speed limit, then any motorists in front of you should do at least the same or more? Or do you wittingly tailgate them (which in effect is dangerous bullying) into getting them to either speed up or pull over? As for the 25mph issue, you did mention that it was a moped...[/p][/quote]yes thats exactly what im saying, that the person in front of me should be doing the limit, if they find people tailgating them do they not think this is because they are not doing the limit, i have had people tailgate me and all i do is pull over and let them pass, no trouble to do that, and yes i mentioned it was a moped, why does that make a difference? as ive been behind cars on dual carriageways that do this speed as well, but the moped was stuck in the middle so you couldnt over take at all, people moan when there are speeding drivers but im moaning of people that cannot use their right foot on a pedal and even get to the limit[/p][/quote]Hello Rach74, IMO, you would do well to go on an advanced driving course.[/p][/quote]so glad Rally you choose to pick on me, why do you not go on and advanced driving course?, how long have you been driving? judging by what you post i do not know why you drive at all, you must be one of these that are at the front of every hold up as cannot read the signs telling you the speeds on roads, yes advanced driving course for you[/p][/quote]Hello Rach74, It's your apparent attitude towards posted speed limits that I am concerned with here, not you as a person - no ad hominem was intended. Rally
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

Are you claiming that if monies saved through the abolition of speed cameras did not end up funding the Dorset traffic police, then it will be because the Dorset police and councils have no honesty, integrity, competence, or genuine interest in saving life etc?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Are you claiming that if monies saved through the abolition of speed cameras did not end up funding the Dorset traffic police, then it will be because the Dorset police and councils have no honesty, integrity, competence, or genuine interest in saving life etc? Rally
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Tue 19 Jul 11

rayc says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.
Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?
Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?[/p][/quote]Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing. rayc
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Tue 19 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

Are you claiming that if monies saved through the abolition of speed cameras did not end up funding the Dorset traffic police, then it will be because the Dorset police and councils have no honesty, integrity, competence, or genuine interest in saving life etc?
Blimey Rally you do like going on. It would depend on what we were told. If we were told that the funding was being transferred to proper policing, and it ended up not being, that would be dishonest. In any case, if we continue spend on the multitude of DRS jobsworths and useless speed cameras instead of even just a few traffic cops and smarter methods, it shows incompetence and / or greed, either way a lack of interest in saving life.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Are you claiming that if monies saved through the abolition of speed cameras did not end up funding the Dorset traffic police, then it will be because the Dorset police and councils have no honesty, integrity, competence, or genuine interest in saving life etc?[/p][/quote]Blimey Rally you do like going on. It would depend on what we were told. If we were told that the funding was being transferred to proper policing, and it ended up not being, that would be dishonest. In any case, if we continue spend on the multitude of DRS jobsworths and useless speed cameras instead of even just a few traffic cops and smarter methods, it shows incompetence and / or greed, either way a lack of interest in saving life. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:37pm Tue 19 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

rayc wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.
Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?
Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing.
I'm afraid the police have lost my (and many others) trust / confidence. No excuses has turned into something little better than speed cameras, they are still only interested in the money, as demonstrated by the 150% profit on courses and refusal to explain the claimed £813,000 "cost" of providing courses. This is one of many areas that has to be repaired before claims of interest in road safety will have any credibility.
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?[/p][/quote]Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid the police have lost my (and many others) trust / confidence. No excuses has turned into something little better than speed cameras, they are still only interested in the money, as demonstrated by the 150% profit on courses and refusal to explain the claimed £813,000 "cost" of providing courses. This is one of many areas that has to be repaired before claims of interest in road safety will have any credibility. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Tue 19 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
rayc wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.
Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?
Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing.
I'm afraid the police have lost my (and many others) trust / confidence. No excuses has turned into something little better than speed cameras, they are still only interested in the money, as demonstrated by the 150% profit on courses and refusal to explain the claimed £813,000 "cost" of providing courses. This is one of many areas that has to be repaired before claims of interest in road safety will have any credibility.
If you read what the government are saying at http://assets.dft.go
v.uk/publications/pg
r-roadsafety-strateg
icframework-pdf/stra
tegicframework.pdf , you see will see that they are considering raising fixed penalty notice charges to between £80 and £100 (5.15, page 61), so this means they would be in line with the courses run here.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?[/p][/quote]Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid the police have lost my (and many others) trust / confidence. No excuses has turned into something little better than speed cameras, they are still only interested in the money, as demonstrated by the 150% profit on courses and refusal to explain the claimed £813,000 "cost" of providing courses. This is one of many areas that has to be repaired before claims of interest in road safety will have any credibility.[/p][/quote]If you read what the government are saying at http://assets.dft.go v.uk/publications/pg r-roadsafety-strateg icframework-pdf/stra tegicframework.pdf , you see will see that they are considering raising fixed penalty notice charges to between £80 and £100 (5.15, page 61), so this means they would be in line with the courses run here. tbpoole
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

Are you claiming that if monies saved through the abolition of speed cameras did not end up funding the Dorset traffic police, then it will be because the Dorset police and councils have no honesty, integrity, competence, or genuine interest in saving life etc?
Blimey Rally you do like going on. It would depend on what we were told. If we were told that the funding was being transferred to proper policing, and it ended up not being, that would be dishonest. In any case, if we continue spend on the multitude of DRS jobsworths and useless speed cameras instead of even just a few traffic cops and smarter methods, it shows incompetence and / or greed, either way a lack of interest in saving life.
That's a 'Yes', then...
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: It could happen if our police and councils had any honesty, integrity, competence, genuine interest in saving life etc. - oh yeah, I see what you mean.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Are you claiming that if monies saved through the abolition of speed cameras did not end up funding the Dorset traffic police, then it will be because the Dorset police and councils have no honesty, integrity, competence, or genuine interest in saving life etc?[/p][/quote]Blimey Rally you do like going on. It would depend on what we were told. If we were told that the funding was being transferred to proper policing, and it ended up not being, that would be dishonest. In any case, if we continue spend on the multitude of DRS jobsworths and useless speed cameras instead of even just a few traffic cops and smarter methods, it shows incompetence and / or greed, either way a lack of interest in saving life.[/p][/quote]That's a 'Yes', then... Rally
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Tue 19 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
rayc wrote:
Rally wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.
Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?
Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing.
I'm afraid the police have lost my (and many others) trust / confidence. No excuses has turned into something little better than speed cameras, they are still only interested in the money, as demonstrated by the 150% profit on courses and refusal to explain the claimed £813,000 "cost" of providing courses. This is one of many areas that has to be repaired before claims of interest in road safety will have any credibility.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

I can't help but feel that the Police's claims of interest in road safety are somewhat more credible than your own.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You’ll find more arguments and suggestions than you could count in my contributions to these news items and on the DorsetSpeed website, but it is mostly about criticism as the Dorset Authorities deserve it. A “magic bullet” would be nice, but all I’m suggesting at the moment is that whatever we spend on desk jobs getting as many people onto courses, we spend instead on proper front line policing, even if a very little of it. That’s quite sensible. Pat Garret, Johnny Stephens and co have occasionally been forced to communicate with me but they hate it as the only logical conclusion from such discussions is as above i.e. that they should lose their jobs and we should pay for traffic cops instead. Our local councils never listen to anyone about anything, that’s just the way it is.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Do you honestly believe, even for a moment, that any monies saved through abolishing the Dorset authority that deals with speed cameras, etc., will end up in the coffers of the Dorset Traffic Police?[/p][/quote]Well I would prefer that the amount I pay in council tax, which the council then use to fund Dorset Roadsafe, were paid directly to the Police instead to be used on road policing.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid the police have lost my (and many others) trust / confidence. No excuses has turned into something little better than speed cameras, they are still only interested in the money, as demonstrated by the 150% profit on courses and refusal to explain the claimed £813,000 "cost" of providing courses. This is one of many areas that has to be repaired before claims of interest in road safety will have any credibility.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, I can't help but feel that the Police's claims of interest in road safety are somewhat more credible than your own. Rally
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Tue 19 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

What police claims of interest in road safety? If you don't believe me, take a look at this. If you can provide any concrete arguments against any of this, please let us know: http://www.fightback
withfacts.com/
What police claims of interest in road safety? If you don't believe me, take a look at this. If you can provide any concrete arguments against any of this, please let us know: http://www.fightback withfacts.com/ dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Tue 19 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
PooleBabe, there are clearly 2 different things going on: what needs to be done to control dangerous behaviour, and the point of obeying the law. The ideal scenario is that laws would be optimised and implemented in such a way as to most effectively control dangerous behaviour, then there would be little conflict and most of us would be happy. But use of the law has been distorted by the financial motivations to control the least dangerous behaviour, that is the problem. Of course many have been horribly killed and injured largely because of distraction due to a phone. But think about it, for example it is legal to operate a phone in a cradle, which can be just as bad. So it is right to challenge what does not seem right. I am not saying it’s ok to use a phone when driving slowly or to break the law. I’m only saying that focussing on behaviour which in practice is not very dangerous is not as productive in saving live as focussing on behaviour which obviously is.
Dorsetspeed, I am not against your campaign. I mentioned that I felt that, your arguments, are at times, weak.

Quote "But use of the law has been distorted by the financial motivations to control the least dangerous behaviour"

Are you suggesting that speed camera's were in place for financial gain? That being the case, why are so many being dropped because of "costs"

On the flip side, could you be suggesting that the "no excuse campaign" was introduced as a more financially lucrative way of raising revenue? Revenue for what?

The courses offered to drivers that have "broken the law" (no tricks, the law is well published) earn money for a campaign that catches drivers breaking other laws, other than speeding? I thought that was the basis of your campaign? Real police, catching drivers breaking the law. Not those "faultless drivers" conned, because they did 5mph over a speed limit that was "designed to catch good driver's out"

Wasn't that the original point to your campaign against Gatso's?

You have stated that you are concerned that no one has answered your queries as to where the revenue raised from these courses is being spent. Yet in this article, it states the "No Excuse" campaign will be expanded.

This for once, is something I agree with. They appeared initially, to have used a hammer to crack a nut. However, the way I see it, this in itself has been a success. The revenue raised so far, will be used *presumably* to extend the scheme.

If it turns out not to be the case, I may ask the same questions as you are now Dorsetspeed. I have to point out, that with every job, there has to be the "bread and butter" earners. Call it justification if you will. Every government funded department is struggling to justify it's spending right now. It's campaigns like this vs children's services, or adult social care that budgets are spent or cut. Where would you justify the money be spent? Mobile phone using, whilst driving law breakers, may be helping to plug gaps in budgets, is that reasonable? What would you suggest?

I did, eventually understand your campaign against the Gatso's. This was because, at the time, you praised the "no excuse" campaign. I have an open mind, and should the "no excuse" campaign continue to focus on the "easy targets" I will still have trouble being logical over the black and white law breakers, caught with a human police presence, other than a yellow box.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: PooleBabe, there are clearly 2 different things going on: what needs to be done to control dangerous behaviour, and the point of obeying the law. The ideal scenario is that laws would be optimised and implemented in such a way as to most effectively control dangerous behaviour, then there would be little conflict and most of us would be happy. But use of the law has been distorted by the financial motivations to control the least dangerous behaviour, that is the problem. Of course many have been horribly killed and injured largely because of distraction due to a phone. But think about it, for example it is legal to operate a phone in a cradle, which can be just as bad. So it is right to challenge what does not seem right. I am not saying it’s ok to use a phone when driving slowly or to break the law. I’m only saying that focussing on behaviour which in practice is not very dangerous is not as productive in saving live as focussing on behaviour which obviously is.[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed, I am not against your campaign. I mentioned that I felt that, your arguments, are at times, weak. Quote "But use of the law has been distorted by the financial motivations to control the least dangerous behaviour" Are you suggesting that speed camera's were in place for financial gain? That being the case, why are so many being dropped because of "costs" On the flip side, could you be suggesting that the "no excuse campaign" was introduced as a more financially lucrative way of raising revenue? Revenue for what? The courses offered to drivers that have "broken the law" (no tricks, the law is well published) earn money for a campaign that catches drivers breaking other laws, other than speeding? I thought that was the basis of your campaign? Real police, catching drivers breaking the law. Not those "faultless drivers" conned, because they did 5mph over a speed limit that was "designed to catch good driver's out" Wasn't that the original point to your campaign against Gatso's? You have stated that you are concerned that no one has answered your queries as to where the revenue raised from these courses is being spent. Yet in this article, it states the "No Excuse" campaign will be expanded. This for once, is something I agree with. They appeared initially, to have used a hammer to crack a nut. However, the way I see it, this in itself has been a success. The revenue raised so far, will be used *presumably* to extend the scheme. If it turns out not to be the case, I may ask the same questions as you are now Dorsetspeed. I have to point out, that with every job, there has to be the "bread and butter" earners. Call it justification if you will. Every government funded department is struggling to justify it's spending right now. It's campaigns like this vs children's services, or adult social care that budgets are spent or cut. Where would you justify the money be spent? Mobile phone using, whilst driving law breakers, may be helping to plug gaps in budgets, is that reasonable? What would you suggest? I did, eventually understand your campaign against the Gatso's. This was because, at the time, you praised the "no excuse" campaign. I have an open mind, and should the "no excuse" campaign continue to focus on the "easy targets" I will still have trouble being logical over the black and white law breakers, caught with a human police presence, other than a yellow box. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Tue 19 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

PooleBabe,

Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate.

I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed!

And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks.

Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me.

As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving.

No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc.

I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.
PooleBabe, Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate. I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed! And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks. Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me. As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving. No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc. I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:06am Wed 20 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
What police claims of interest in road safety? If you don't believe me, take a look at this. If you can provide any concrete arguments against any of this, please let us know: http://www.fightback

withfacts.com/
Hello Dorsetspeed,
Well, I've scanned through the site and it is quite clearly the work of an anti-authorities conspiracy theorist.

I'm particulary taken with the author's comment, "My analysis of 6m accidents is well on the way to clarifying the extent of this effect and how it varies across the country and across different types of roads."
6 million! "...across the country and across different types of roads"! I would dearly love to see how the author achieved this awesome task.
Why don't you post the web addresses of sites that question these allegations?
Or are you going to say, conveniently, that there aren't any?
Notice how the page on the 'Brake' organisation page is blank.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: What police claims of interest in road safety? If you don't believe me, take a look at this. If you can provide any concrete arguments against any of this, please let us know: http://www.fightback withfacts.com/[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Well, I've scanned through the site and it is quite clearly the work of an anti-authorities conspiracy theorist. I'm particulary taken with the author's comment, "My analysis of 6m accidents is well on the way to clarifying the extent of this effect and how it varies across the country and across different types of roads." 6 million! "...across the country and across different types of roads"! I would dearly love to see how the author achieved this awesome task. Why don't you post the web addresses of sites that question these allegations? Or are you going to say, conveniently, that there aren't any? Notice how the page on the 'Brake' organisation page is blank. Rally
  • Score: 0

12:22am Wed 20 Jul 11

Rally says...

Dorsetspeed wrote, "Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate."
I like PooleBabe's approach, but I am not PooleBabe so my approach is different to his or hers.
I and others here ask Dorsetspeed straight-forward questions, but this is seen by him as not a part of "constructive debate".
Perhaps the truth of the matter is that he doesn't like the questions...
Dorsetspeed wrote, "Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate." I like PooleBabe's approach, but I am not PooleBabe so my approach is different to his or hers. I and others here ask Dorsetspeed straight-forward questions, but this is seen by him as not a part of "constructive debate". Perhaps the truth of the matter is that he doesn't like the questions... Rally
  • Score: 0

8:01am Wed 20 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, the reason I don’t like your style is that you are clearly more interested in arguing than finding answers. You now suggest I avoid answering questions but I am meticulous about this, so I now have to waste more time asking you to tell me which questions I have avoided. Again, if you had read the fighbackwithfacts site with an open mind, I would not be having to point out to you that the author points out it is a “work in progress” and “For that reason some subject headings are simply a declaration of intent devoid of content until I am able to put it in place”. It’s easy to analyse large numbers of events when you have the electronic data in raw format. You demonstrate perfectly the mindset “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” What web addresses exactly is it that you want? Let’s see some logic from you for a change Rally. If the site is “quite clearly the work of an anti-authorities conspiracy theorist.” then it should be easy for you to tell us why. What is inaccurate about this site?
Rally, the reason I don’t like your style is that you are clearly more interested in arguing than finding answers. You now suggest I avoid answering questions but I am meticulous about this, so I now have to waste more time asking you to tell me which questions I have avoided. Again, if you had read the fighbackwithfacts site with an open mind, I would not be having to point out to you that the author points out it is a “work in progress” and “For that reason some subject headings are simply a declaration of intent devoid of content until I am able to put it in place”. It’s easy to analyse large numbers of events when you have the electronic data in raw format. You demonstrate perfectly the mindset “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” What web addresses exactly is it that you want? Let’s see some logic from you for a change Rally. If the site is “quite clearly the work of an anti-authorities conspiracy theorist.” then it should be easy for you to tell us why. What is inaccurate about this site? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:17am Wed 20 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, the reason I don’t like your style is that you are clearly more interested in arguing than finding answers. You now suggest I avoid answering questions but I am meticulous about this, so I now have to waste more time asking you to tell me which questions I have avoided. Again, if you had read the fighbackwithfacts site with an open mind, I would not be having to point out to you that the author points out it is a “work in progress” and “For that reason some subject headings are simply a declaration of intent devoid of content until I am able to put it in place”. It’s easy to analyse large numbers of events when you have the electronic data in raw format. You demonstrate perfectly the mindset “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” What web addresses exactly is it that you want? Let’s see some logic from you for a change Rally. If the site is “quite clearly the work of an anti-authorities conspiracy theorist.” then it should be easy for you to tell us why. What is inaccurate about this site?
Hello Dorsetspeed,

You wrote, 'You demonstrate perfectly the mindset “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts”'
In which case there is no point in my answering your questions. :)
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, the reason I don’t like your style is that you are clearly more interested in arguing than finding answers. You now suggest I avoid answering questions but I am meticulous about this, so I now have to waste more time asking you to tell me which questions I have avoided. Again, if you had read the fighbackwithfacts site with an open mind, I would not be having to point out to you that the author points out it is a “work in progress” and “For that reason some subject headings are simply a declaration of intent devoid of content until I am able to put it in place”. It’s easy to analyse large numbers of events when you have the electronic data in raw format. You demonstrate perfectly the mindset “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” What web addresses exactly is it that you want? Let’s see some logic from you for a change Rally. If the site is “quite clearly the work of an anti-authorities conspiracy theorist.” then it should be easy for you to tell us why. What is inaccurate about this site?[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, 'You demonstrate perfectly the mindset “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts”' In which case there is no point in my answering your questions. :) Rally
  • Score: 0

11:39am Wed 20 Jul 11

Rally says...

Hello Dorsetspeed,

According to the DSCP (on their website as of this morning):

1) Neither the police nor any other partners in the safety camera scheme make any profit from the speed and red light fines.
Is this true or false?

2) All fine revenue is passed to the Treasury.
Is this true or false?

3) Safety Camera Partnerships are funded by a grant from Central Government. This means there is no incentive for safety camera partnerships to place cameras anywhere other than where they are needed to improve road safety.
Is this true or false?

4) Before the safety camera scheme was introduced in 2000, speed and red light camera enforcement was paid for by the taxpayer, now it’s paid for by those motorists who break the law.
Is this true or false?
Hello Dorsetspeed, According to the DSCP (on their website as of this morning): 1) Neither the police nor any other partners in the safety camera scheme make any profit from the speed and red light fines. Is this true or false? 2) All fine revenue is passed to the Treasury. Is this true or false? 3) Safety Camera Partnerships are funded by a grant from Central Government. This means there is no incentive for safety camera partnerships to place cameras anywhere other than where they are needed to improve road safety. Is this true or false? 4) Before the safety camera scheme was introduced in 2000, speed and red light camera enforcement was paid for by the taxpayer, now it’s paid for by those motorists who break the law. Is this true or false? Rally
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Wed 20 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, some proper questions, good. 1 and 2 are entirely correct. All FINE revenue is passed to the treasury. But in true DRS style, they are being very economic with the truth. They don’t mention COURSE revenue. This is just as substantial and they can do whatever they want with it.

3. Economy with the truth again. Yes, government contributes, but so do the LOCAL COUNCILS who profit from courses. So those who receive substantial finances can choose to spend on activities likely to increase that income. Very unsavoury. If the camera partnerships can provide good income, this is directly likely to improve their job security.

4. Incorrect. Motorists who GET CAUGHT breaking the law pay for enforcements. Every motorist will break a law to some extent on every journey. Vast numbers break the law countless times and DO NOT pay for enforcements.
Rally, some proper questions, good. 1 and 2 are entirely correct. All FINE revenue is passed to the treasury. But in true DRS style, they are being very economic with the truth. They don’t mention COURSE revenue. This is just as substantial and they can do whatever they want with it. 3. Economy with the truth again. Yes, government contributes, but so do the LOCAL COUNCILS who profit from courses. So those who receive substantial finances can choose to spend on activities likely to increase that income. Very unsavoury. If the camera partnerships can provide good income, this is directly likely to improve their job security. 4. Incorrect. Motorists who GET CAUGHT breaking the law pay for enforcements. Every motorist will break a law to some extent on every journey. Vast numbers break the law countless times and DO NOT pay for enforcements. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Wed 20 Jul 11

Zockavenger says...

Do you know what I think would help more than static speed cameras?

Average speed cameras, ones that measure your speed over a distance..
Do you know what I think would help more than static speed cameras? Average speed cameras, ones that measure your speed over a distance.. Zockavenger
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Wed 20 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Zockavenger wrote:
Do you know what I think would help more than static speed cameras?

Average speed cameras, ones that measure your speed over a distance..
It'll never happen. They reduce speeds very effectively, so they don't make enough money.
[quote][p][bold]Zockavenger[/bold] wrote: Do you know what I think would help more than static speed cameras? Average speed cameras, ones that measure your speed over a distance..[/p][/quote]It'll never happen. They reduce speeds very effectively, so they don't make enough money. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Thu 21 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
PooleBabe,

Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate.

I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed!

And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks.

Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me.

As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving.

No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc.

I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.
You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further.

As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent.

Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time.

With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off.

Just some bullet point thoughts here;

How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety?

With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras?

When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off?

It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: PooleBabe, Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate. I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed! And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks. Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me. As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving. No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc. I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.[/p][/quote]You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further. As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent. Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time. With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off. Just some bullet point thoughts here; How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety? With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras? When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off? It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Thu 21 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

You can find quite a lot of info in this doc:

http://www.dpa.polic
e.uk/pdf/PA230611_24
_SEES_Financial_Outt
urn_Year_Ending_31_M
arch_2011.pdf

Also, all of the camera casualty and nip count stat for last year have been released on the DRS website:

http://www.dorsetroa
dsafe.org.uk/index.p
hp?option=com_conten
t&task=view&id=33&It
emid=50

You will see in the menu on the left, stats for fixed, mobile, etc.

They were forced to do this last year when I complained to the information commissioner about them refusing to tell me the NIP count for the Holes Bay camera.

The accident stats are interesting, there are so few at the enforcement sites this alone shows that cameras can't really achieve anything

I may be on BBC radio solent or TV in the next few days about driver course fees.
You can find quite a lot of info in this doc: http://www.dpa.polic e.uk/pdf/PA230611_24 _SEES_Financial_Outt urn_Year_Ending_31_M arch_2011.pdf Also, all of the camera casualty and nip count stat for last year have been released on the DRS website: http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/index.p hp?option=com_conten t&task=view&id=33&It emid=50 You will see in the menu on the left, stats for fixed, mobile, etc. They were forced to do this last year when I complained to the information commissioner about them refusing to tell me the NIP count for the Holes Bay camera. The accident stats are interesting, there are so few at the enforcement sites this alone shows that cameras can't really achieve anything I may be on BBC radio solent or TV in the next few days about driver course fees. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Thu 21 Jul 11

Rally says...

poolebabe wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
PooleBabe,

Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate.

I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed!

And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks.

Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me.

As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving.

No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc.

I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.
You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further.

As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent.

Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time.

With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off.

Just some bullet point thoughts here;

How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety?

With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras?

When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off?

It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.
Hello PooleBabe,

You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..."
Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are?
Many thanks.
[quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: PooleBabe, Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate. I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed! And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks. Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me. As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving. No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc. I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.[/p][/quote]You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further. As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent. Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time. With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off. Just some bullet point thoughts here; How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety? With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras? When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off? It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.[/p][/quote]Hello PooleBabe, You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..." Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are? Many thanks. Rally
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 21 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, even the DfT is aware of the problems that can be caused by limits too low:

"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be
ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and
avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers
continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and
injuries."

By the way, you went a bit quiet about your 4 questions. Did they back-fire on you?
Rally, even the DfT is aware of the problems that can be caused by limits too low: "Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries." By the way, you went a bit quiet about your 4 questions. Did they back-fire on you? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:22am Fri 22 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, even the DfT is aware of the problems that can be caused by limits too low:

"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be
ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and
avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers
continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and
injuries."

By the way, you went a bit quiet about your 4 questions. Did they back-fire on you?
Hello Dorsetspeed,

You wrote, ‘Rally, even the DfT is aware of the problems that can be caused by limits too low:’

I’m sure they are (it would be rather worrying if they didn’t!), but this does not answer the question I put to PooleBabe.
PooleBabe wrote, ‘The lower speed limits have caused further problems,...’
I responded to this with the question, ‘Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are?’
You see, I had assumed from his or her wording that PooleBabe had one or more specific things in mind, e.g. the 40mph limit on parts of the Wessex Way.
You appear to me to have mistakenly taken my question to PooleBabe out of context and answered it with what is nothing more than a sweeping generalisation.
I shall ignore your comment and wait to see if PooleBabe cares to post what he or she had in mind when writing, ‘The lower speed limits have caused further problems,...’.

You wrote, ‘By the way, you went a bit quiet about your 4 questions. Did they back-fire on you?

I quoted four clear cut statements that appear on the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership’s website (http://www.dorsetro
adsafe.org.uk/index.
php?option=com_conte
nt&task=view&id=10&I
temid=130 ),
and asked you the same question about each of them, i.e. Is this true or false?
Please can you explain how your answers could possibly result in any of these four questions backfiring on me?
As far as I am concerned, your answers have given me more insight into your, how shall I put it, approach to the speed cameras and speed limits issues, and as such have proven quite useful (your responses to quotes 3 and 4 I find particularly enlightening).
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, even the DfT is aware of the problems that can be caused by limits too low: "Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries." By the way, you went a bit quiet about your 4 questions. Did they back-fire on you?[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, ‘Rally, even the DfT is aware of the problems that can be caused by limits too low:’ I’m sure they are (it would be rather worrying if they didn’t!), but this does not answer the question I put to PooleBabe. PooleBabe wrote, ‘The lower speed limits have caused further problems,...’ I responded to this with the question, ‘Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are?’ You see, I had assumed from his or her wording that PooleBabe had one or more specific things in mind, e.g. the 40mph limit on parts of the Wessex Way. You appear to me to have mistakenly taken my question to PooleBabe out of context and answered it with what is nothing more than a sweeping generalisation. I shall ignore your comment and wait to see if PooleBabe cares to post what he or she had in mind when writing, ‘The lower speed limits have caused further problems,...’. You wrote, ‘By the way, you went a bit quiet about your 4 questions. Did they back-fire on you? I quoted four clear cut statements that appear on the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership’s website (http://www.dorsetro adsafe.org.uk/index. php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=10&I temid=130 ), and asked you the same question about each of them, i.e. Is this true or false? Please can you explain how your answers could possibly result in any of these four questions backfiring on me? As far as I am concerned, your answers have given me more insight into your, how shall I put it, approach to the speed cameras and speed limits issues, and as such have proven quite useful (your responses to quotes 3 and 4 I find particularly enlightening). Rally
  • Score: 0

7:38am Fri 22 Jul 11

tbpoole says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
You can find quite a lot of info in this doc:

http://www.dpa.polic

e.uk/pdf/PA230611_24

_SEES_Financial_Outt

urn_Year_Ending_31_M

arch_2011.pdf

Also, all of the camera casualty and nip count stat for last year have been released on the DRS website:

http://www.dorsetroa

dsafe.org.uk/index.p

hp?option=com_conten

t&task=view&
id=33&It
emid=50

You will see in the menu on the left, stats for fixed, mobile, etc.

They were forced to do this last year when I complained to the information commissioner about them refusing to tell me the NIP count for the Holes Bay camera.

The accident stats are interesting, there are so few at the enforcement sites this alone shows that cameras can't really achieve anything

I may be on BBC radio solent or TV in the next few days about driver course fees.
As usual you let your ego get in the way of the facts dorsetspeed.

I understand that the stats were on the website long before you started your 'campaign' so it had nothing to do with you.

In addition if the cameras weren't doing their job then there would be more not fewer accidents, wouldn't you think?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You can find quite a lot of info in this doc: http://www.dpa.polic e.uk/pdf/PA230611_24 _SEES_Financial_Outt urn_Year_Ending_31_M arch_2011.pdf Also, all of the camera casualty and nip count stat for last year have been released on the DRS website: http://www.dorsetroa dsafe.org.uk/index.p hp?option=com_conten t&task=view& id=33&It emid=50 You will see in the menu on the left, stats for fixed, mobile, etc. They were forced to do this last year when I complained to the information commissioner about them refusing to tell me the NIP count for the Holes Bay camera. The accident stats are interesting, there are so few at the enforcement sites this alone shows that cameras can't really achieve anything I may be on BBC radio solent or TV in the next few days about driver course fees.[/p][/quote]As usual you let your ego get in the way of the facts dorsetspeed. I understand that the stats were on the website long before you started your 'campaign' so it had nothing to do with you. In addition if the cameras weren't doing their job then there would be more not fewer accidents, wouldn't you think? tbpoole
  • Score: 0

8:18am Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, only you could consider a problem with limits too low to be a “sweeping generalisation” - problems are problems, wherever they are and whoever recognises them.

My answers to your questions show that DRS are dishonest and inaccurate on their website. It has nothing to do with my “approach”. I don’t think this was the result you were looking for.
Rally, only you could consider a problem with limits too low to be a “sweeping generalisation” - problems are problems, wherever they are and whoever recognises them. My answers to your questions show that DRS are dishonest and inaccurate on their website. It has nothing to do with my “approach”. I don’t think this was the result you were looking for. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:24am Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

tbPoole, you are right, the ksi stats were there before, but the nip count stats were in fact added as a direct result of my complaint to the IC

For most sites the KSI count goes back beyond the introduction of the enforcement, there are so few events before and after introduction that (as correctly mentioned in the last SEES report) it is difficult to identify any trends.
tbPoole, you are right, the ksi stats were there before, but the nip count stats were in fact added as a direct result of my complaint to the IC For most sites the KSI count goes back beyond the introduction of the enforcement, there are so few events before and after introduction that (as correctly mentioned in the last SEES report) it is difficult to identify any trends. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

8:43am Fri 22 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

Rally wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
PooleBabe,

Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate.

I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed!

And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks.

Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me.

As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving.

No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc.

I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.
You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further.

As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent.

Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time.

With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off.

Just some bullet point thoughts here;

How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety?

With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras?

When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off?

It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.
Hello PooleBabe,

You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..."
Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are?
Many thanks.
Further problems for example, Wessex way, speed limit reduced to 40mph. Tailgating and intimidation towards those who drive within the law, heavy braking at Gatso sites then high acceleration, over taking in the inside lane and lane weaving.

Similar on the Dorset Way. The left hand lane on the Dorset Way (East-bound) carries on, with no need to stop. The right hand lane approaching the roundabout, you have to give way. Some drivers are using the left lane to over take those who are driving within the law, cutting them up on the inside, to over take.

That's what I meant by further problems. I have no problem with the lower limits if they were policed, (not by Gatso's) so that these issues don't impact on those drivers that are driving within the law.

On the specific areas of those two dual carriageways, road design is poor. The slip roads and directional lanes, justify the limits in my opinion. But it makes a mockery of lowering the limits if they don't police them. The Gatso on the Wessex way, doesn't police these drivers. In fairness though, it never has. They know where the cameras are. It's just now the limits are lower, it makes it easier for them.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: PooleBabe, Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate. I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed! And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks. Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me. As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving. No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc. I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.[/p][/quote]You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further. As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent. Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time. With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off. Just some bullet point thoughts here; How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety? With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras? When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off? It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.[/p][/quote]Hello PooleBabe, You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..." Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are? Many thanks.[/p][/quote]Further problems for example, Wessex way, speed limit reduced to 40mph. Tailgating and intimidation towards those who drive within the law, heavy braking at Gatso sites then high acceleration, over taking in the inside lane and lane weaving. Similar on the Dorset Way. The left hand lane on the Dorset Way (East-bound) carries on, with no need to stop. The right hand lane approaching the roundabout, you have to give way. Some drivers are using the left lane to over take those who are driving within the law, cutting them up on the inside, to over take. That's what I meant by further problems. I have no problem with the lower limits if they were policed, (not by Gatso's) so that these issues don't impact on those drivers that are driving within the law. On the specific areas of those two dual carriageways, road design is poor. The slip roads and directional lanes, justify the limits in my opinion. But it makes a mockery of lowering the limits if they don't police them. The Gatso on the Wessex way, doesn't police these drivers. In fairness though, it never has. They know where the cameras are. It's just now the limits are lower, it makes it easier for them. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

9:10am Fri 22 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

Dorset Speed, I think I understand a little more. There is a "remit" of the Dorset Road Safety partnership, with aims and objectives. The courses offered, are designed to address specific issues under that remit. Now I understand why many other offences go un-policed. Specifically " Currently the scheme is used to dispose of Speeding, Red Light
Offence and more recently Mobile Phone Offences"

This answers my question on the revenue raised from the DAC "Re-investment of revenue into road safety for Dorset"

Seems fairly straight forward, am I missing something?
Dorset Speed, I think I understand a little more. There is a "remit" of the Dorset Road Safety partnership, with aims and objectives. The courses offered, are designed to address specific issues under that remit. Now I understand why many other offences go un-policed. Specifically " Currently the scheme is used to dispose of Speeding, Red Light Offence and more recently Mobile Phone Offences" This answers my question on the revenue raised from the DAC "Re-investment of revenue into road safety for Dorset" Seems fairly straight forward, am I missing something? poolebabe
  • Score: 0

9:34am Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Indeed, much money raised from courses and much money is spent on enforcements, etc. Are you saying that because of this there isn't a problem? But much of the money also supports jobs, the money is available for any use by the police and councils. Do you think DRS staff in making their decisions about activities have in the back of their mind the closure of other partnerships due to costs, and how the financial profitability of what they choose to do might influence their job security?
Do you think the councils in funding the partnerships are thinking about the £2 million that will come back through course income and the 30% increase per year in this that DRS have achieved?
Enforcements like the greed on green and no excuses, and refusal to release financial information about course costs tend to suggest that these motivations really are messing up road safety, which can only result in more injuries and deaths than their should be. This is the problem.

The reality is that "education" only works when the participants are willing, and most will be thoroughly p****d off that they have to spend so much and waist so much time. The only thing they will learn is not to GET CAUGHT again, which is easy enough, and does not need an improvement in driver behaviour, as you have noticed.
Indeed, much money raised from courses and much money is spent on enforcements, etc. Are you saying that because of this there isn't a problem? But much of the money also supports jobs, the money is available for any use by the police and councils. Do you think DRS staff in making their decisions about activities have in the back of their mind the closure of other partnerships due to costs, and how the financial profitability of what they choose to do might influence their job security? Do you think the councils in funding the partnerships are thinking about the £2 million that will come back through course income and the 30% increase per year in this that DRS have achieved? Enforcements like the greed on green and no excuses, and refusal to release financial information about course costs tend to suggest that these motivations really are messing up road safety, which can only result in more injuries and deaths than their should be. This is the problem. The reality is that "education" only works when the participants are willing, and most will be thoroughly p****d off that they have to spend so much and waist so much time. The only thing they will learn is not to GET CAUGHT again, which is easy enough, and does not need an improvement in driver behaviour, as you have noticed. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 22 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, only you could consider a problem with limits too low to be a “sweeping generalisation” - problems are problems, wherever they are and whoever recognises them.

My answers to your questions show that DRS are dishonest and inaccurate on their website. It has nothing to do with my “approach”. I don’t think this was the result you were looking for.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

Once again you lift somebody's comment out of context and then criticise it.
Please go back and read what I wrote IN CONTEXT.

You wrote, 'My answers to your questions show that DRS are dishonest and inaccurate on their website.'
Not at all, Dorsetspeed. Your answers to questions 3 and 4 show how clouded by prejudice your judgement is.
As for your comment, 'I don’t think this was the result you were looking for.'
I am not looking for a particular result.
I am trying to gain insight into your approach to the issues of speed cameras, speeding fines, etc.
Currently, I view your approach as somewhat dubious.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, only you could consider a problem with limits too low to be a “sweeping generalisation” - problems are problems, wherever they are and whoever recognises them. My answers to your questions show that DRS are dishonest and inaccurate on their website. It has nothing to do with my “approach”. I don’t think this was the result you were looking for.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, Once again you lift somebody's comment out of context and then criticise it. Please go back and read what I wrote IN CONTEXT. You wrote, 'My answers to your questions show that DRS are dishonest and inaccurate on their website.' Not at all, Dorsetspeed. Your answers to questions 3 and 4 show how clouded by prejudice your judgement is. As for your comment, 'I don’t think this was the result you were looking for.' I am not looking for a particular result. I am trying to gain insight into your approach to the issues of speed cameras, speeding fines, etc. Currently, I view your approach as somewhat dubious. Rally
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, I really am losing the will to carry on with this. I'm not a mind reader, if you have any problems with anything I've written then you really have to clearly state it, then I will reply. For example, please tell me what is inaccurate about my answers to 3 and 4.
Rally, I really am losing the will to carry on with this. I'm not a mind reader, if you have any problems with anything I've written then you really have to clearly state it, then I will reply. For example, please tell me what is inaccurate about my answers to 3 and 4. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Fri 22 Jul 11

Rally says...

poolebabe wrote:
Rally wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
PooleBabe,

Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate.

I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed!

And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks.

Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me.

As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving.

No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc.

I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.
You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further.

As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent.

Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time.

With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off.

Just some bullet point thoughts here;

How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety?

With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras?

When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off?

It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.
Hello PooleBabe,

You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..."
Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are?
Many thanks.
Further problems for example, Wessex way, speed limit reduced to 40mph. Tailgating and intimidation towards those who drive within the law, heavy braking at Gatso sites then high acceleration, over taking in the inside lane and lane weaving.

Similar on the Dorset Way. The left hand lane on the Dorset Way (East-bound) carries on, with no need to stop. The right hand lane approaching the roundabout, you have to give way. Some drivers are using the left lane to over take those who are driving within the law, cutting them up on the inside, to over take.

That's what I meant by further problems. I have no problem with the lower limits if they were policed, (not by Gatso's) so that these issues don't impact on those drivers that are driving within the law.

On the specific areas of those two dual carriageways, road design is poor. The slip roads and directional lanes, justify the limits in my opinion. But it makes a mockery of lowering the limits if they don't police them. The Gatso on the Wessex way, doesn't police these drivers. In fairness though, it never has. They know where the cameras are. It's just now the limits are lower, it makes it easier for them.
Hello PooleBabe,

Many thanks for responding - especially so fully.
Believe it or not, I agree with you on all the points you raise.
However, I am not at all sure how these problems can be resolved.
I can see that an increase in traffic police patrol would help, but how many such patrols is it going to take - and at what financial cost - to police the roads adequately?
Changes to slip roads and junctions might well help, but once again we run into the problem of finance.
Should we be looking more at drivers' general attitudes towards the Highway Code and somehow changing them for the better (i.e. less anti-social') than physical changes to road layouts, etc?
[quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: PooleBabe, Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate. I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed! And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks. Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me. As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving. No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc. I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.[/p][/quote]You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further. As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent. Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time. With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off. Just some bullet point thoughts here; How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety? With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras? When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off? It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.[/p][/quote]Hello PooleBabe, You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..." Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are? Many thanks.[/p][/quote]Further problems for example, Wessex way, speed limit reduced to 40mph. Tailgating and intimidation towards those who drive within the law, heavy braking at Gatso sites then high acceleration, over taking in the inside lane and lane weaving. Similar on the Dorset Way. The left hand lane on the Dorset Way (East-bound) carries on, with no need to stop. The right hand lane approaching the roundabout, you have to give way. Some drivers are using the left lane to over take those who are driving within the law, cutting them up on the inside, to over take. That's what I meant by further problems. I have no problem with the lower limits if they were policed, (not by Gatso's) so that these issues don't impact on those drivers that are driving within the law. On the specific areas of those two dual carriageways, road design is poor. The slip roads and directional lanes, justify the limits in my opinion. But it makes a mockery of lowering the limits if they don't police them. The Gatso on the Wessex way, doesn't police these drivers. In fairness though, it never has. They know where the cameras are. It's just now the limits are lower, it makes it easier for them.[/p][/quote]Hello PooleBabe, Many thanks for responding - especially so fully. Believe it or not, I agree with you on all the points you raise. However, I am not at all sure how these problems can be resolved. I can see that an increase in traffic police patrol would help, but how many such patrols is it going to take - and at what financial cost - to police the roads adequately? Changes to slip roads and junctions might well help, but once again we run into the problem of finance. Should we be looking more at drivers' general attitudes towards the Highway Code and somehow changing them for the better (i.e. less anti-social') than physical changes to road layouts, etc? Rally
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Fri 22 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote: '... the nip count stats were in fact added as a direct result of my complaint to the IC'.

Hello dorsetspeed,

Presumably you received a written communication from the IC stating that the nip count stats would be added as a direct result of your complaint to them.
Or are we perhaps looking at a coincidence?
dorsetspeed wrote: '... the nip count stats were in fact added as a direct result of my complaint to the IC'. Hello dorsetspeed, Presumably you received a written communication from the IC stating that the nip count stats would be added as a direct result of your complaint to them. Or are we perhaps looking at a coincidence? Rally
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Fri 22 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I really am losing the will to carry on with this. I'm not a mind reader, if you have any problems with anything I've written then you really have to clearly state it, then I will reply. For example, please tell me what is inaccurate about my answers to 3 and 4.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

It is not so much that your answers to 3 and 4 are essentially innaccurate as more that they do not actually answer the questions.
Once again, IMO, you use rhetoric to avoid answering a straight-forward question.
Still, credit where credit is due, dorsetspeed, you are very good at evading questions. ;)
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, I really am losing the will to carry on with this. I'm not a mind reader, if you have any problems with anything I've written then you really have to clearly state it, then I will reply. For example, please tell me what is inaccurate about my answers to 3 and 4.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, It is not so much that your answers to 3 and 4 are essentially innaccurate as more that they do not actually answer the questions. Once again, IMO, you use rhetoric to avoid answering a straight-forward question. Still, credit where credit is due, dorsetspeed, you are very good at evading questions. ;) Rally
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

In what way is my "rhetoric" incorrect or not relevant to the question? The question can only be answered properly by filling in the information DRS has chosen to leave out.

Extract from IC communication below


You have previously requested the "number of fines" issued at Holes Bay.
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reference to this case is
FS50293628. The specific wording of your request as reported by the ICO
under their reference is:

"for the number of NIPs issued by the two 'speed on green cameras' at
Sterte/ Holes Bay from the date of their commission to
the date of the request "

In response to that request I can state that, in the period 1 July 2009
to 19 November 2009, there were nil (zero) Notice of Intended
Prosecution (NIPs) issued for either of the safety cameras concerned.

Whilst the speed on green safety cameras activated when any vehicles
passed them that exceeded the clearly signed speed limit no actual
prosecution action was taken against those vehicles during the period
stated and onwards until 22 November when the prosecution process
actually started.

For your further information - in various discussion with the ICO
regarding the safety cameras in question and other safety cameras
positioned around the county the DSCP has decided that it will publish
the historic number NIPs issued at safety camera sites.
In what way is my "rhetoric" incorrect or not relevant to the question? The question can only be answered properly by filling in the information DRS has chosen to leave out. Extract from IC communication below You have previously requested the "number of fines" issued at Holes Bay. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) reference to this case is FS50293628. The specific wording of your request as reported by the ICO under their reference is: "for the number of NIPs issued by the two 'speed on green cameras' at Sterte/ Holes Bay from the date of their commission [c. 1 July 2009 ] to the date of the request [19 November 2009]" In response to that request I can state that, in the period 1 July 2009 to 19 November 2009, there were nil (zero) Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIPs) issued for either of the safety cameras concerned. Whilst the speed on green safety cameras activated when any vehicles passed them that exceeded the clearly signed speed limit no actual prosecution action was taken against those vehicles during the period stated and onwards until 22 November when the prosecution process actually started. For your further information - in various discussion with the ICO regarding the safety cameras in question and other safety cameras positioned around the county the DSCP has decided that it will publish the historic number NIPs issued at safety camera sites. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, in your answer to Poolebabe: "I can see that an increase in traffic police patrol would help, but how many such patrols is it going to take - and at what financial cost - to police the roads adequately?"

Just policing the roads "a bit" would be a good start. Sack all the DRS staff and pay for intelligent front line traffic cops instead, even if just a few.
Rally, in your answer to Poolebabe: "I can see that an increase in traffic police patrol would help, but how many such patrols is it going to take - and at what financial cost - to police the roads adequately?" Just policing the roads "a bit" would be a good start. Sack all the DRS staff and pay for intelligent front line traffic cops instead, even if just a few. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Fri 22 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

Rally wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
Rally wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
PooleBabe,

Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate.

I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed!

And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks.

Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me.

As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving.

No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc.

I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.
You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further.

As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent.

Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time.

With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off.

Just some bullet point thoughts here;

How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety?

With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras?

When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off?

It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.
Hello PooleBabe,

You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..."
Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are?
Many thanks.
Further problems for example, Wessex way, speed limit reduced to 40mph. Tailgating and intimidation towards those who drive within the law, heavy braking at Gatso sites then high acceleration, over taking in the inside lane and lane weaving.

Similar on the Dorset Way. The left hand lane on the Dorset Way (East-bound) carries on, with no need to stop. The right hand lane approaching the roundabout, you have to give way. Some drivers are using the left lane to over take those who are driving within the law, cutting them up on the inside, to over take.

That's what I meant by further problems. I have no problem with the lower limits if they were policed, (not by Gatso's) so that these issues don't impact on those drivers that are driving within the law.

On the specific areas of those two dual carriageways, road design is poor. The slip roads and directional lanes, justify the limits in my opinion. But it makes a mockery of lowering the limits if they don't police them. The Gatso on the Wessex way, doesn't police these drivers. In fairness though, it never has. They know where the cameras are. It's just now the limits are lower, it makes it easier for them.
Hello PooleBabe,

Many thanks for responding - especially so fully.
Believe it or not, I agree with you on all the points you raise.
However, I am not at all sure how these problems can be resolved.
I can see that an increase in traffic police patrol would help, but how many such patrols is it going to take - and at what financial cost - to police the roads adequately?
Changes to slip roads and junctions might well help, but once again we run into the problem of finance.
Should we be looking more at drivers' general attitudes towards the Highway Code and somehow changing them for the better (i.e. less anti-social') than physical changes to road layouts, etc?
Rally, I get your points. Especially since reading what the "remit" is of DRS and the courses they provide. Remits would have to be changed, in order to allow for other specific offences to tackled "within the scheme" This is the issue to me right now.

They have taken what they see are the main problems. Speed, red light jumping, mobile phone use, drink driving. One would guess that through statistical research, and consultations with the police, they have come up with the lists of those offences statistically proven to be a major factor of a serious accident and even death, and designed a course to correct them. The *black and white view* couldn't *argue* that.

In addition, when speeding fines are challenged, it costs the tax payer money. I'm guessing, the carrot of an awareness course, would throw a few people off balance, and grabbing the opportunity with both hands to avoid the points, works. Not a bad move really. Especially if it saves the tax payers from funding appeals, that should go to other, essential services which are being cut. *I bear in mine that if people have nothing to lose by appealing penalty points that can cost jobs, they will appeal*

As for the answers, I don't have them, but I agree driver's general attitudes towards the highway code would help a lot, but that's easier said than done. Does a course change an attitude necessarily? I understand the courses are designed to address those issues, but are they necessarily targeting the right people?

A momentary lapse of concentration can land you a course, but wilful breaches of the highway code, speeding with the knowledge of the location of cameras, won't. This is where I agree with Dorset Speed, but unless the "remit" is changed of the DRS, this is not going to change.

Perhaps more relevant, the published statistics show a reduction in accidents, and in particular, child fatalities were published as zero. Those are the published figures, so therefore, cannot really be challenged, if a constructive argument was going to be used.

I do not agree at this moment in time, that poor road design should be tackled, due to finances, although simply closing a slip road on the Wessex way would help one issue. Problems can be solved one at a time with a minimum of effort realistically.

I for one have no problem with well distinguished speed limits, whatever they may be, but I do have a problem with feeling bullied by drivers that put me and other drivers at risk, when we are abiding by the law. Using my concentration to focus more on them then I should have to, puts ME at risk of a momentary lapse in concentration, and could cause me to have an accident, or even a fine. This maybe constructive criticism for the DRS.

I've done some campaigning in my time, and have attended reputable courses on constructive campaigning. Dorset Speed, if I can help I will. I have to state that I do not blame anyone trying to justify their job right now.

I presume DRS are a quango. Not all quangos are bad.

I think what the DRS are doing, is with the right motives in the main, but agree that a few tweaks are needed to make it fairer.

Dorset Speed, just one tip, the name of your campaign "Dorset SPEED" from an objective point of view, does not do you justice. I *hope* I understand your campaign in the main, but it took a while, and part of that was your title if you don't mind me saying.
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: PooleBabe, Thanks for your reply, I’ll try to respond to all the points. Rally and others, please take note, PooleBabe is showing how to do constructive debate. I can’t actually understand what’s going on with speed camera funding. I have many FOI requests in progress which might help to reveal it. The Poole Holes Bay Camera, one of the most profitable in the country (at least a £ million a year), was initially going to be shut down as a part of cost cutting, however, the installations costs paid, it costs a couple of grand a year to maintain! They then said they would move it to somewhere with a more pressing (than zero!) casualty reduction need. The latest is that it’s staying with a higher detection speed. So Dorset Road Safe are now telling us it’s ok to speed! And the authorities, when asked about these things, remain silent. Do you see the problem? There is no transparency, consistency, nothing makes sense. They refuse to tell us how they are spending £813,000 of OUR money to provide the courses. The whole thing stinks. Revenue for what, I don’t know that is why I have asked the question and they have FLATLY REFUSED to communicate about my question. Does this worry you because it worries me. As far as I am aware, no excuses has caught no-one for road rage, dangerous overtaking, undertaking, using junctions badly, tailgating, and precious few drunk / drugged drivers, drivers related with other crimes, etc. I’m sure they would have happily told us about this if it had happened. But tens of thousands for not wearing a seatbelt, and many news articles boasting the numbers caught and some of the silly things said without any evidence of improved driving. “Surround a town” that gets as many people onto a course and then disappears. I welcomed no excuse when it was introduced, but it is clear to me now that it’s little better than yellow boxes. This is not the same as real cops targeting dangerous driving. No Excuse expanding does not answer questions, and don’t be comforted by no excuses just expanding. The proof is in what happens on the roads, ask yourself if you see driving standards improving and reducing accident counts, because that is the measure of success, not number of people on courses, number of no excuse operations, etc. I am delighted you will keep an open mind, and I will look forward to communicating with you again in the future maybe on this or other debates.[/p][/quote]You have done it again Dorset Speed. You have many many good and valid points. Thanks for explaining them further. As for driving standards, I have to say, I haven't noticed any improvements. Quite the opposite in fact. The lower speed limits have caused further problems, and we are yet to see those problems tackled. With the extension of the scheme, I would seriously expect the revenue be spent on that. If that's where the revenue is going, they should indeed have no problem with being transparent. Have you been successful in finding out the breakdown of offences recorded since running the scheme? It would be interesting to see these, and whether the offences have changed over time. With the Holes Bay camera in particular, you demonstrated your campaign well, with the shear volumes of people "caught" speeding. If they had kept the camera there, they wouldn't be able to justify to the government, the fines vs reductions in accidents. I don't know the exact figures of how many people were caught, we know it was one heck of a lot. Very soon, they have to publish the relevant statistics to the government, and I would imagine that was the motivation for turning it, and other cameras off. Just some bullet point thoughts here; How is the funding formula from the government worked out for road safety? With fewer cameras active, can LA's apply for further funding to relocate cameras? When publishing the figures to the government, do they have to include cameras that have been switched off? It would be interesting to know the "ins and outs" a bit more.[/p][/quote]Hello PooleBabe, You wrote 'Dorsetspeed, "The lower speed limits have caused further problems,..." Please can you be specific and state what these 'further problems' are? Many thanks.[/p][/quote]Further problems for example, Wessex way, speed limit reduced to 40mph. Tailgating and intimidation towards those who drive within the law, heavy braking at Gatso sites then high acceleration, over taking in the inside lane and lane weaving. Similar on the Dorset Way. The left hand lane on the Dorset Way (East-bound) carries on, with no need to stop. The right hand lane approaching the roundabout, you have to give way. Some drivers are using the left lane to over take those who are driving within the law, cutting them up on the inside, to over take. That's what I meant by further problems. I have no problem with the lower limits if they were policed, (not by Gatso's) so that these issues don't impact on those drivers that are driving within the law. On the specific areas of those two dual carriageways, road design is poor. The slip roads and directional lanes, justify the limits in my opinion. But it makes a mockery of lowering the limits if they don't police them. The Gatso on the Wessex way, doesn't police these drivers. In fairness though, it never has. They know where the cameras are. It's just now the limits are lower, it makes it easier for them.[/p][/quote]Hello PooleBabe, Many thanks for responding - especially so fully. Believe it or not, I agree with you on all the points you raise. However, I am not at all sure how these problems can be resolved. I can see that an increase in traffic police patrol would help, but how many such patrols is it going to take - and at what financial cost - to police the roads adequately? Changes to slip roads and junctions might well help, but once again we run into the problem of finance. Should we be looking more at drivers' general attitudes towards the Highway Code and somehow changing them for the better (i.e. less anti-social') than physical changes to road layouts, etc?[/p][/quote]Rally, I get your points. Especially since reading what the "remit" is of DRS and the courses they provide. Remits would have to be changed, in order to allow for other specific offences to tackled "within the scheme" This is the issue to me right now. They have taken what they see are the main problems. Speed, red light jumping, mobile phone use, drink driving. One would guess that through statistical research, and consultations with the police, they have come up with the lists of those offences statistically proven to be a major factor of a serious accident and even death, and designed a course to correct them. The *black and white view* couldn't *argue* that. In addition, when speeding fines are challenged, it costs the tax payer money. I'm guessing, the carrot of an awareness course, would throw a few people off balance, and grabbing the opportunity with both hands to avoid the points, works. Not a bad move really. Especially if it saves the tax payers from funding appeals, that should go to other, essential services which are being cut. *I bear in mine that if people have nothing to lose by appealing penalty points that can cost jobs, they will appeal* As for the answers, I don't have them, but I agree driver's general attitudes towards the highway code would help a lot, but that's easier said than done. Does a course change an attitude necessarily? I understand the courses are designed to address those issues, but are they necessarily targeting the right people? A momentary lapse of concentration can land you a course, but wilful breaches of the highway code, speeding with the knowledge of the location of cameras, won't. This is where I agree with Dorset Speed, but unless the "remit" is changed of the DRS, this is not going to change. Perhaps more relevant, the published statistics show a reduction in accidents, and in particular, child fatalities were published as zero. Those are the published figures, so therefore, cannot really be challenged, if a constructive argument was going to be used. I do not agree at this moment in time, that poor road design should be tackled, due to finances, although simply closing a slip road on the Wessex way would help one issue. Problems can be solved one at a time with a minimum of effort realistically. I for one have no problem with well distinguished speed limits, whatever they may be, but I do have a problem with feeling bullied by drivers that put me and other drivers at risk, when we are abiding by the law. Using my concentration to focus more on them then I should have to, puts ME at risk of a momentary lapse in concentration, and could cause me to have an accident, or even a fine. This maybe constructive criticism for the DRS. I've done some campaigning in my time, and have attended reputable courses on constructive campaigning. Dorset Speed, if I can help I will. I have to state that I do not blame anyone trying to justify their job right now. I presume DRS are a quango. Not all quangos are bad. I think what the DRS are doing, is with the right motives in the main, but agree that a few tweaks are needed to make it fairer. Dorset Speed, just one tip, the name of your campaign "Dorset SPEED" from an objective point of view, does not do you justice. I *hope* I understand your campaign in the main, but it took a while, and part of that was your title if you don't mind me saying. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Poolebabe, call it a remit if you want but it’s still making money in priority over saving life by targeting the greatest possible number of least dangerous offences and ignoring the most dangerous and that’s not right. And despite the silly posters everywhere, it’s not a deterrent, for example drink driving is increasing: http://www.bridportn
ews.co.uk/news/lymen
ews/9098054.County__
Drink_drive_numbers_
increase/

And as you noticed driving isn’t getting any better. They can’t hide behind “remits”.
.
“The Driver Awareness Scheme in Dorset helps to educate road users about the dangers of inappropriate speed.” - Not correct following distance, safe overtaking, driving in the rain / snow / ice, correct use of sliproads, observation, concentration, anticipation, lane discipline, respect / tolerance of fellow road users, vehicle safety, risk / hazard recognition, etc, etc, etc. Just speed. Ridiculous.

Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING. Every driver probably commits some kind of offence on every journey. It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course now who are unlikely to cause accident, simply as they’ve not been caught before. Most are making a deliberate decision to speed, education won’t do anything anyway.

KSI are reducing in all countries, largely due to the recession and rocketing fuel and insurance costs which will hit the youngest drivers, most likely to crash, the most. Good luck with your “constructive criticism” for DRS, they’ll ignore it just like everything else!

The DorsetSpeed name came from the area I’m in and what I’m interested in, also something likely to work well with search engines. You not the first to mention that it might give the impression I like speed, but hopefully most will read what I write.
Poolebabe, call it a remit if you want but it’s still making money in priority over saving life by targeting the greatest possible number of least dangerous offences and ignoring the most dangerous and that’s not right. And despite the silly posters everywhere, it’s not a deterrent, for example drink driving is increasing: http://www.bridportn ews.co.uk/news/lymen ews/9098054.County__ Drink_drive_numbers_ increase/ And as you noticed driving isn’t getting any better. They can’t hide behind “remits”. . “The Driver Awareness Scheme in Dorset helps to educate road users about the dangers of inappropriate speed.” - Not correct following distance, safe overtaking, driving in the rain / snow / ice, correct use of sliproads, observation, concentration, anticipation, lane discipline, respect / tolerance of fellow road users, vehicle safety, risk / hazard recognition, etc, etc, etc. Just speed. Ridiculous. Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING. Every driver probably commits some kind of offence on every journey. It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course now who are unlikely to cause accident, simply as they’ve not been caught before. Most are making a deliberate decision to speed, education won’t do anything anyway. KSI are reducing in all countries, largely due to the recession and rocketing fuel and insurance costs which will hit the youngest drivers, most likely to crash, the most. Good luck with your “constructive criticism” for DRS, they’ll ignore it just like everything else! The DorsetSpeed name came from the area I’m in and what I’m interested in, also something likely to work well with search engines. You not the first to mention that it might give the impression I like speed, but hopefully most will read what I write. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Fri 22 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Poolebabe, call it a remit if you want but it’s still making money in priority over saving life by targeting the greatest possible number of least dangerous offences and ignoring the most dangerous and that’s not right. And despite the silly posters everywhere, it’s not a deterrent, for example drink driving is increasing: http://www.bridportn

ews.co.uk/news/lymen

ews/9098054.County__

Drink_drive_numbers_

increase/

And as you noticed driving isn’t getting any better. They can’t hide behind “remits”.
.
“The Driver Awareness Scheme in Dorset helps to educate road users about the dangers of inappropriate speed.” - Not correct following distance, safe overtaking, driving in the rain / snow / ice, correct use of sliproads, observation, concentration, anticipation, lane discipline, respect / tolerance of fellow road users, vehicle safety, risk / hazard recognition, etc, etc, etc. Just speed. Ridiculous.

Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING. Every driver probably commits some kind of offence on every journey. It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course now who are unlikely to cause accident, simply as they’ve not been caught before. Most are making a deliberate decision to speed, education won’t do anything anyway.

KSI are reducing in all countries, largely due to the recession and rocketing fuel and insurance costs which will hit the youngest drivers, most likely to crash, the most. Good luck with your “constructive criticism” for DRS, they’ll ignore it just like everything else!

The DorsetSpeed name came from the area I’m in and what I’m interested in, also something likely to work well with search engines. You not the first to mention that it might give the impression I like speed, but hopefully most will read what I write.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

You really have lost the plot!
You need to do something about your seeming pathological distrust, if not hatred, of the DRS and associated authorities.
You would do well to get PooleBabe to join your campaign because you really do need to take on board a voice of reason.

BTW, I, too, argue that you need to change your title 'DorsetSpeed' to something less misleading.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Poolebabe, call it a remit if you want but it’s still making money in priority over saving life by targeting the greatest possible number of least dangerous offences and ignoring the most dangerous and that’s not right. And despite the silly posters everywhere, it’s not a deterrent, for example drink driving is increasing: http://www.bridportn ews.co.uk/news/lymen ews/9098054.County__ Drink_drive_numbers_ increase/ And as you noticed driving isn’t getting any better. They can’t hide behind “remits”. . “The Driver Awareness Scheme in Dorset helps to educate road users about the dangers of inappropriate speed.” - Not correct following distance, safe overtaking, driving in the rain / snow / ice, correct use of sliproads, observation, concentration, anticipation, lane discipline, respect / tolerance of fellow road users, vehicle safety, risk / hazard recognition, etc, etc, etc. Just speed. Ridiculous. Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING. Every driver probably commits some kind of offence on every journey. It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course now who are unlikely to cause accident, simply as they’ve not been caught before. Most are making a deliberate decision to speed, education won’t do anything anyway. KSI are reducing in all countries, largely due to the recession and rocketing fuel and insurance costs which will hit the youngest drivers, most likely to crash, the most. Good luck with your “constructive criticism” for DRS, they’ll ignore it just like everything else! The DorsetSpeed name came from the area I’m in and what I’m interested in, also something likely to work well with search engines. You not the first to mention that it might give the impression I like speed, but hopefully most will read what I write.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, You really have lost the plot! You need to do something about your seeming pathological distrust, if not hatred, of the DRS and associated authorities. You would do well to get PooleBabe to join your campaign because you really do need to take on board a voice of reason. BTW, I, too, argue that you need to change your title 'DorsetSpeed' to something less misleading. Rally
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Fri 22 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, all I ask is that you come up with some concrete facts / questions / points, rather than spurious and subjective comments like "lost the plot".
Rally, all I ask is that you come up with some concrete facts / questions / points, rather than spurious and subjective comments like "lost the plot". dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

1:14am Sat 23 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, all I ask is that you come up with some concrete facts / questions / points, rather than spurious and subjective comments like "lost the plot".
Hello dorsetspeed,

Have a read of the Institute of Advanced Motorists' 'Contributory factors report' available as a PDF via
http://www.iam.org.u
k/policy_and_researc
h/policyaresearch.ht
ml.
This should help put things into their proper perspective for you.
Do take note of how high up the lists of fatalities 'Exceeding speed limit' appears and compare to 'Impaired by alcohol'
It would appear that your general comments about drink-driving, tailgating, etc., in relation to exceeding the speed limit are somewhat misleading.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, all I ask is that you come up with some concrete facts / questions / points, rather than spurious and subjective comments like "lost the plot".[/p][/quote]Hello dorsetspeed, Have a read of the Institute of Advanced Motorists' 'Contributory factors report' available as a PDF via http://www.iam.org.u k/policy_and_researc h/policyaresearch.ht ml. This should help put things into their proper perspective for you. Do take note of how high up the lists of fatalities 'Exceeding speed limit' appears and compare to 'Impaired by alcohol' It would appear that your general comments about drink-driving, tailgating, etc., in relation to exceeding the speed limit are somewhat misleading. Rally
  • Score: 0

9:22am Sat 23 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, one of the things that always amazes me about the supporters for the likes of Dorset Road Safe is the total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding. I have consistently said that dangerous speeding is one of the biggest problems. But the fact that boy racers are wiping themselves (and perhaps unfortunately others as well) overtaking dangerously at speed or trying to get round corners at 90, does not mean that the correct response is to send vast numbers of normal, safe, drivers doing 37 on a perfectly good dual carriageway on a course!
For example, 20,000 have been fined on the Holes Bay Road in just over a year. Many many others will have been speeding anyway but just braked for the camera and sped up again. So for a long time, getting on for 100 a day have been speeding near this camera. And the ksi total for this camera location since records began over 10 years ago? Zero. I’m happy for the police to target speeding, but I want them to put their efforts and resources into the type of speeding that causes accidents, not the type of speeding that does not.
I can see why you don’t like working with the facts, they tend to reveal reality.
Rally, one of the things that always amazes me about the supporters for the likes of Dorset Road Safe is the total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding. I have consistently said that dangerous speeding is one of the biggest problems. But the fact that boy racers are wiping themselves (and perhaps unfortunately others as well) overtaking dangerously at speed or trying to get round corners at 90, does not mean that the correct response is to send vast numbers of normal, safe, drivers doing 37 on a perfectly good dual carriageway on a course! For example, 20,000 have been fined on the Holes Bay Road in just over a year. Many many others will have been speeding anyway but just braked for the camera and sped up again. So for a long time, getting on for 100 a day have been speeding near this camera. And the ksi total for this camera location since records began over 10 years ago? Zero. I’m happy for the police to target speeding, but I want them to put their efforts and resources into the type of speeding that causes accidents, not the type of speeding that does not. I can see why you don’t like working with the facts, they tend to reveal reality. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

11:34am Sat 23 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

Dorset Speed. It's not "hiding" behind a remit. Mission statement, constitution, call it what you like. It is what it is.

My point, in a nut shell is that you can't go on about WHY DRS don't tackle other issues, and demanding answers for things they don't do. You may as well be asking them why they don't give out free ice cream.

Quote "And as you noticed driving isn’t getting any better. They can’t hide behind “remits”.

What I notice makes no difference to DRS's statistical evidence, based on aims and objectives.

The Drink driving statistics "on the increase" could be explained by a lot of factors. The numbers of people stopped and tested for example. 20% or 8 drivers tested, were involved in a collision, and were tested irrespective of whether they were suspected of drinking. Was that part of the campaign last year? I don't know. Just throwing it out there.

The other 32 people they got off the road before the drink driving could cause an accident. That is bound to have some impact on the figures of accidents recorded. Note how those drivers caught committing a serious offence, "The 40 drivers that have been arrested so far during the campaign will, if convicted, face at least a 12-month driving ban" As the driver awareness course does not include these drivers, it's not a deterrent.

Quote "Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING"

Running a red light, speeding and using a mobile phone isn't an offence then?

Quote "It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course"

Yes, because the more serious of offenders wouldn't be given the opportunity, because the most serious "criminal" driving offences are dealt with by the courts, with more serious consequences. I can't imagine the public would support a driver with no insurance, tax or MOT being offered an awareness course to wipe the slate clean.

I also note that a person could still be offered a DAC if they speed up to 41mph is about 36% over the limit. Seems significant to me.

One major issue I have, is the disproportionate prosecutions vs accidents. For example, the mobile and laser camera on the Wessex Way by Cooper Dean, there were 2 slight accidents and one serious, but not fatal. However, there were 2451 intended prosecutions. Yet the fixed camera at Talbot Avenue 2009 5 slight accidents, 2 serious and 1 fatal, and just 120 intended prosecutions. The following year, despite the fatality, and an increase of slight accidents at 11 (but no serious or fatal) The intended prosecutions was just 60. Despite the drop in prosecutions, there was a fatality. The camera didn't not prevent a death. The death was caused by dangerous driving, driving without a UK licence and having no vehicle insurance. This is where the statistics don't add up with sense. To support what I have been saying, this driver wouldn't have been offered the DAC, although stopping under the "no excuse" would have seen him dealt with by the courts, and got him off the road. "No Excuse" may target minor infringements, but those caught could well be guilty of other serious offences.
Dorset Speed. It's not "hiding" behind a remit. Mission statement, constitution, call it what you like. It is what it is. My point, in a nut shell is that you can't go on about WHY DRS don't tackle other issues, and demanding answers for things they don't do. You may as well be asking them why they don't give out free ice cream. Quote "And as you noticed driving isn’t getting any better. They can’t hide behind “remits”. What I notice makes no difference to DRS's statistical evidence, based on aims and objectives. The Drink driving statistics "on the increase" could be explained by a lot of factors. The numbers of people stopped and tested for example. 20% or 8 drivers tested, were involved in a collision, and were tested irrespective of whether they were suspected of drinking. Was that part of the campaign last year? I don't know. Just throwing it out there. The other 32 people they got off the road before the drink driving could cause an accident. That is bound to have some impact on the figures of accidents recorded. Note how those drivers caught committing a serious offence, "The 40 drivers that have been arrested so far during the campaign will, if convicted, face at least a 12-month driving ban" As the driver awareness course does not include these drivers, it's not a deterrent. Quote "Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING" Running a red light, speeding and using a mobile phone isn't an offence then? Quote "It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course" Yes, because the more serious of offenders wouldn't be given the opportunity, because the most serious "criminal" driving offences are dealt with by the courts, with more serious consequences. I can't imagine the public would support a driver with no insurance, tax or MOT being offered an awareness course to wipe the slate clean. I also note that a person could still be offered a DAC if they speed up to 41mph is about 36% over the limit. Seems significant to me. One major issue I have, is the disproportionate prosecutions vs accidents. For example, the mobile and laser camera on the Wessex Way by Cooper Dean, there were 2 slight accidents and one serious, but not fatal. However, there were 2451 intended prosecutions. Yet the fixed camera at Talbot Avenue 2009 5 slight accidents, 2 serious and 1 fatal, and just 120 intended prosecutions. The following year, despite the fatality, and an increase of slight accidents at 11 (but no serious or fatal) The intended prosecutions was just 60. Despite the drop in prosecutions, there was a fatality. The camera didn't not prevent a death. The death was caused by dangerous driving, driving without a UK licence and having no vehicle insurance. This is where the statistics don't add up with sense. To support what I have been saying, this driver wouldn't have been offered the DAC, although stopping under the "no excuse" would have seen him dealt with by the courts, and got him off the road. "No Excuse" may target minor infringements, but those caught could well be guilty of other serious offences. poolebabe
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Sat 23 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Poolebabe,

I don’t care if what Dorset Police / DRS does comes from remits, playing cards, drawing straws out of a hat or whatever, they need to GET IT RIGHT.

DRS has presented no evidence of success, and indeed has commented in the latest SEES report that “the very low numbers make identifying any trends difficult”.

I agree that there could be many reasons for drink driving detections to increase but I don’t think that the police are presenting an adequate deterrent – those who drink drive will think that they won’t get stopped if they don’t speed.

Running red lights, speeding, and holding a phone are offences and I’ve never said otherwise.

What I meant by gentlest, safest drivers was that these are going on the courses but also these are by far the largest group being detected. You need to work differently to target the kind of driving likely to kill someone, than to get the max possible number of people onto courses.

The driver you mentioned only came to attention because he killed someone through dangerous driving. We don’t know all the facts but it may well be that no excuse did not detect and control him or her before the death occurred because they we too busy making money. I think we all see seriously dangerous driving far too frequently, there's plenty for the police to deal with if they wanted to.
Poolebabe, I don’t care if what Dorset Police / DRS does comes from remits, playing cards, drawing straws out of a hat or whatever, they need to GET IT RIGHT. DRS has presented no evidence of success, and indeed has commented in the latest SEES report that “the very low numbers make identifying any trends difficult”. I agree that there could be many reasons for drink driving detections to increase but I don’t think that the police are presenting an adequate deterrent – those who drink drive will think that they won’t get stopped if they don’t speed. Running red lights, speeding, and holding a phone are offences and I’ve never said otherwise. What I meant by gentlest, safest drivers was that these are going on the courses but also these are by far the largest group being detected. You need to work differently to target the kind of driving likely to kill someone, than to get the max possible number of people onto courses. The driver you mentioned only came to attention because he killed someone through dangerous driving. We don’t know all the facts but it may well be that no excuse did not detect and control him or her before the death occurred because they we too busy making money. I think we all see seriously dangerous driving far too frequently, there's plenty for the police to deal with if they wanted to. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Sat 23 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, one of the things that always amazes me about the supporters for the likes of Dorset Road Safe is the total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding. I have consistently said that dangerous speeding is one of the biggest problems. But the fact that boy racers are wiping themselves (and perhaps unfortunately others as well) overtaking dangerously at speed or trying to get round corners at 90, does not mean that the correct response is to send vast numbers of normal, safe, drivers doing 37 on a perfectly good dual carriageway on a course!
For example, 20,000 have been fined on the Holes Bay Road in just over a year. Many many others will have been speeding anyway but just braked for the camera and sped up again. So for a long time, getting on for 100 a day have been speeding near this camera. And the ksi total for this camera location since records began over 10 years ago? Zero. I’m happy for the police to target speeding, but I want them to put their efforts and resources into the type of speeding that causes accidents, not the type of speeding that does not.
I can see why you don’t like working with the facts, they tend to reveal reality.
Hello dorsetspeed,

You wrote, ‘Rally, one of the things that always amazes me about the supporters for the likes of Dorset Road Safe is the total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding.’

The arrogance you display in constantly denigrating the intelligence and integrity of the wide range of people involved with Dorset Road Safe et al (Local Councils, Police, NHS, etc) does you no credit at all.

You wrote, ‘I have consistently said that dangerous speeding is one of the biggest problems. But the fact that boy racers are wiping themselves (and perhaps unfortunately others as well) overtaking dangerously at speed or trying to get round corners at 90, does not mean that the correct response is to send vast numbers of normal, safe, drivers doing 37 on a perfectly good dual carriageway on a course!

The fact remains that it is an offence to exceed the posted speed limit - whether one agrees or disagrees with the limit is actually irrelevant.
My understanding is that this course is offered as an alternative to having 3 penalty points on one’s driving licence.
This strikes me as a perfectly good idea.
I do not agree with the view that this course has no positive effect on people’s driving behaviour.
It’s like arguing – albeit to a lesser degree - that taking an advanced driving course will not improve one’s driving.
True, there are motorists who refuse to change their bad driving habits, but these, um, morons are in the minority – or so I like to believe.

You wrote, ‘I’m happy for the police to target speeding, but I want them to put their efforts and resources into the type of speeding that causes accidents, not the type of speeding that does not.’

I infer from this that you are arguing that driving at, say, 37mph in a 30mph zone does not cause accidents to happen.
Well, I am sure that there are occasions when the driving conditions are such that this is so – but who decides when this is so?
How many motorists are capable of making such a decision and getting it right?
We simply cannot allow motorists to ignore the posted speed limit whenever it suits them.

You wrote, ‘I can see why you don’t like working with the facts, they tend to reveal reality.’

I make a point of reading arguments for and against, though I confess I do not always understand them.
But, then, reading facts/evidence is one thing, interpreting them is another.
You want folk to agree with your interpretations of the facts/evidence, which is fair enough.
The problem, as I see it, is your arrogant, unforgiving approach to it all – ‘likes of Dorset Road Safe… total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding.’ Ring any bells for you?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, one of the things that always amazes me about the supporters for the likes of Dorset Road Safe is the total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding. I have consistently said that dangerous speeding is one of the biggest problems. But the fact that boy racers are wiping themselves (and perhaps unfortunately others as well) overtaking dangerously at speed or trying to get round corners at 90, does not mean that the correct response is to send vast numbers of normal, safe, drivers doing 37 on a perfectly good dual carriageway on a course! For example, 20,000 have been fined on the Holes Bay Road in just over a year. Many many others will have been speeding anyway but just braked for the camera and sped up again. So for a long time, getting on for 100 a day have been speeding near this camera. And the ksi total for this camera location since records began over 10 years ago? Zero. I’m happy for the police to target speeding, but I want them to put their efforts and resources into the type of speeding that causes accidents, not the type of speeding that does not. I can see why you don’t like working with the facts, they tend to reveal reality.[/p][/quote]Hello dorsetspeed, You wrote, ‘Rally, one of the things that always amazes me about the supporters for the likes of Dorset Road Safe is the total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding.’ The arrogance you display in constantly denigrating the intelligence and integrity of the wide range of people involved with Dorset Road Safe et al (Local Councils, Police, NHS, etc) does you no credit at all. You wrote, ‘I have consistently said that dangerous speeding is one of the biggest problems. But the fact that boy racers are wiping themselves (and perhaps unfortunately others as well) overtaking dangerously at speed or trying to get round corners at 90, does not mean that the correct response is to send vast numbers of normal, safe, drivers doing 37 on a perfectly good dual carriageway on a course! The fact remains that it is an offence to exceed the posted speed limit - whether one agrees or disagrees with the limit is actually irrelevant. My understanding is that this course is offered as an alternative to having 3 penalty points on one’s driving licence. This strikes me as a perfectly good idea. I do not agree with the view that this course has no positive effect on people’s driving behaviour. It’s like arguing – albeit to a lesser degree - that taking an advanced driving course will not improve one’s driving. True, there are motorists who refuse to change their bad driving habits, but these, um, morons are in the minority – or so I like to believe. You wrote, ‘I’m happy for the police to target speeding, but I want them to put their efforts and resources into the type of speeding that causes accidents, not the type of speeding that does not.’ I infer from this that you are arguing that driving at, say, 37mph in a 30mph zone does not cause accidents to happen. Well, I am sure that there are occasions when the driving conditions are such that this is so – but who decides when this is so? How many motorists are capable of making such a decision and getting it right? We simply cannot allow motorists to ignore the posted speed limit whenever it suits them. You wrote, ‘I can see why you don’t like working with the facts, they tend to reveal reality.’ I make a point of reading arguments for and against, though I confess I do not always understand them. But, then, reading facts/evidence is one thing, interpreting them is another. You want folk to agree with your interpretations of the facts/evidence, which is fair enough. The problem, as I see it, is your arrogant, unforgiving approach to it all – ‘likes of Dorset Road Safe… total incapability to understand the different severities of speeding.’ Ring any bells for you? Rally
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Sat 23 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, are you suggesting that DRS / Councils etc. DO know the difference in severities of speeding? If so, you might have thought that they, as “road safety experts” would know that the typical speeding on the Holes Bay Road was of the “undangerous” type, as confirmed by the records of DRS themselves. All I’m saying is why did they put a camera here where it clearly was not a safety issue, when they could have put it somewhere where there was a ksi count to reduce, if they believe that cameras reduce ksi? The real problem with the HBR is actually the inappropriately low limit.

I have for many years (rather more calmly initially) put questions and criticisms to DRS, councils, etc and invited discussion. The fact that they have chosen not to communicate does not indicate belief, competence and honesty, and this is why my complaints have escalated. This has reached a new level with Dorset Police refusing, even under FOI, even to communicate about my request for information about how they spend the £813,000 they claim to spend on courses. Yes, I’m afraid, this does look like lack of intelligence and / or integrity.

It would be useful if DRS could get attendees to fill in an honest / independent questionnaire about what they thought of the course and if they think it will improve their driving. I would imagine that they would be afraid to do this as the results would probably not be good.
Rally, are you suggesting that DRS / Councils etc. DO know the difference in severities of speeding? If so, you might have thought that they, as “road safety experts” would know that the typical speeding on the Holes Bay Road was of the “undangerous” type, as confirmed by the records of DRS themselves. All I’m saying is why did they put a camera here where it clearly was not a safety issue, when they could have put it somewhere where there was a ksi count to reduce, if they believe that cameras reduce ksi? The real problem with the HBR is actually the inappropriately low limit. I have for many years (rather more calmly initially) put questions and criticisms to DRS, councils, etc and invited discussion. The fact that they have chosen not to communicate does not indicate belief, competence and honesty, and this is why my complaints have escalated. This has reached a new level with Dorset Police refusing, even under FOI, even to communicate about my request for information about how they spend the £813,000 they claim to spend on courses. Yes, I’m afraid, this does look like lack of intelligence and / or integrity. It would be useful if DRS could get attendees to fill in an honest / independent questionnaire about what they thought of the course and if they think it will improve their driving. I would imagine that they would be afraid to do this as the results would probably not be good. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Sat 23 Jul 11

poolebabe says...

Dorset Speed,

"Quote" I don’t care if what Dorset Police / DRS does comes from remits, playing cards, drawing straws out of a hat or whatever, they need to GET IT RIGHT"

You completely mis-understand how organisations "work" in this case. I've tried to explain how it works. If you want to construct a proper campaign, then you need to look at what's wrong and tackle it. The REMIT is wrong, BUT it is what it is. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it! It's beginning to resemble Monty Python's Life of Brian "right to have babies" It's going round in circles.

the DRS's funding has been cut by 57%, and yet they talk about expanding the scheme, but it's all about jobs for the boys?

You clearly stated that "Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING. "

And

"Every driver probably commits some kind of offence on every journey. It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course now who are unlikely to cause accident"

Ambiguous, using "probably" and "generally" and without "fact" I really want to support you Dorset Speed, but you aren't making it easy tbh :/
Dorset Speed, "Quote" I don’t care if what Dorset Police / DRS does comes from remits, playing cards, drawing straws out of a hat or whatever, they need to GET IT RIGHT" You completely mis-understand how organisations "work" in this case. I've tried to explain how it works. If you want to construct a proper campaign, then you need to look at what's wrong and tackle it. The REMIT is wrong, BUT it is what it is. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it! It's beginning to resemble Monty Python's Life of Brian "right to have babies" It's going round in circles. the DRS's funding has been cut by 57%, and yet they talk about expanding the scheme, but it's all about jobs for the boys? You clearly stated that "Keep in mind, it’s only those BEING CAUGHT who are going on the course, not OFFENDING. " And "Every driver probably commits some kind of offence on every journey. It is generally the gentlest, safest drivers going on the course now who are unlikely to cause accident" Ambiguous, using "probably" and "generally" and without "fact" I really want to support you Dorset Speed, but you aren't making it easy tbh :/ poolebabe
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Sat 23 Jul 11

Rally says...

Hello dorsetspeed,

You wrote, ‘Rally, are you suggesting that DRS / Councils etc. DO know the difference in severities of speeding?’

In a word, yes.
It borders on ludicrousness to argue otherwise.

You wrote, ‘If so, you might have thought that they, as “road safety experts” would know that the typical speeding on the Holes Bay Road was of the “undangerous” type, as confirmed by the records of DRS themselves.
All I’m saying is why did they put a camera here where it clearly was not a safety issue, when they could have put it somewhere where there was a ksi count to reduce, if they believe that cameras reduce ksi?’

Then clearly the placement of this particular camera involved some factor/s other than its type in terms in danger.
Whatever the factor/s might have been is to my mind unimportant.
If a motorist exceeds the posted speed limit (whatever and wherever it may be) then he or she can expect to pay a fine and have three points on their driving licence.
The motorist can avoid this very simply by not exceeding the posted speed limit – something that is not actually difficult to do.

You wrote, ‘The real problem with the HBR is actually the inappropriately low limit.’

Actually, dorsetspeed, there is no problem here – except for the one you have created in your own mind.
What is actually wrong with the 30mph posted speed limit on the Holes Bay Road?
True, some drivers see it as an inconvenience, but if they ceased being impatient then this inconvenience would disappear.
True, the HBR speed camera has caught a lot of motorists exceeding the 30mph, but whose fault is this? – well, the speeding motorists, of course.
But for reasons I cannot fathom, you actively choose to try and steer the blame away from the law-breaking motorist and onto various authorities.

You wrote, ‘I have for many years (rather more calmly initially) put questions and criticisms to DRS, councils, etc and invited discussion. The fact that they have chosen not to communicate does not indicate belief, competence and honesty, and this is why my complaints have escalated. This has reached a new level with Dorset Police refusing, even under FOI, even to communicate about my request for information about how they spend the £813,000 they claim to spend on courses. Yes, I’m afraid, this does look like lack of intelligence and / or integrity.’

When are you going to realise, dorsetspeed, that the main problem here is your arrogant and bigoted approach to the issues involved (I base this on my reading of your numerous posts to this Echo message board).
Try being more civil towards the authorities involved and you just might make some progress; as it is, if I were in their shoes I’d file your correspondence in the WPB unread…

You wrote, ‘It would be useful if DRS could get attendees to fill in an honest / independent questionnaire about what they thought of the course and if they think it will improve their driving. I would imagine that they would be afraid to do this as the results would probably not be good.’

Amazing, dorsetspeed, you come up with a good idea and then flatten it with your own negativity.
You are without doubt your own worst enemy!
Hello dorsetspeed, You wrote, ‘Rally, are you suggesting that DRS / Councils etc. DO know the difference in severities of speeding?’ In a word, yes. It borders on ludicrousness to argue otherwise. You wrote, ‘If so, you might have thought that they, as “road safety experts” would know that the typical speeding on the Holes Bay Road was of the “undangerous” type, as confirmed by the records of DRS themselves. All I’m saying is why did they put a camera here where it clearly was not a safety issue, when they could have put it somewhere where there was a ksi count to reduce, if they believe that cameras reduce ksi?’ Then clearly the placement of this particular camera involved some factor/s other than its type in terms in danger. Whatever the factor/s might have been is to my mind unimportant. If a motorist exceeds the posted speed limit (whatever and wherever it may be) then he or she can expect to pay a fine and have three points on their driving licence. The motorist can avoid this very simply by not exceeding the posted speed limit – something that is not actually difficult to do. You wrote, ‘The real problem with the HBR is actually the inappropriately low limit.’ Actually, dorsetspeed, there is no problem here – except for the one you have created in your own mind. What is actually wrong with the 30mph posted speed limit on the Holes Bay Road? True, some drivers see it as an inconvenience, but if they ceased being impatient then this inconvenience would disappear. True, the HBR speed camera has caught a lot of motorists exceeding the 30mph, but whose fault is this? – well, the speeding motorists, of course. But for reasons I cannot fathom, you actively choose to try and steer the blame away from the law-breaking motorist and onto various authorities. You wrote, ‘I have for many years (rather more calmly initially) put questions and criticisms to DRS, councils, etc and invited discussion. The fact that they have chosen not to communicate does not indicate belief, competence and honesty, and this is why my complaints have escalated. This has reached a new level with Dorset Police refusing, even under FOI, even to communicate about my request for information about how they spend the £813,000 they claim to spend on courses. Yes, I’m afraid, this does look like lack of intelligence and / or integrity.’ When are you going to realise, dorsetspeed, that the main problem here is your arrogant and bigoted approach to the issues involved (I base this on my reading of your numerous posts to this Echo message board). Try being more civil towards the authorities involved and you just might make some progress; as it is, if I were in their shoes I’d file your correspondence in the WPB unread… You wrote, ‘It would be useful if DRS could get attendees to fill in an honest / independent questionnaire about what they thought of the course and if they think it will improve their driving. I would imagine that they would be afraid to do this as the results would probably not be good.’ Amazing, dorsetspeed, you come up with a good idea and then flatten it with your own negativity. You are without doubt your own worst enemy! Rally
  • Score: 0

9:38am Sun 24 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Poolebabe, who determines the nature if the “remit”?, The Dorset Authorities. Who implements the “remit”? The Dorset Authorities. Who profits? The Dorset Authorities.

To suggest the remit is wrong, but everything is ok because they are following a remit, is a bit like a driver saying “yes I was speeding but it’s ok because it is my remit to do so”.

And if DRS / Dorset police does what it does due to a “remit”, why when questioned does it not say so?

Expanding the scheme will of course mean jobs retained at least.

I use the words probably and generally because I do not have the facts about whether or not all drivers commit and offence on every journey. But I still don’t see any drivers braking before they reach 30, 40 and 50 limits to be within the limit at all times.
Poolebabe, who determines the nature if the “remit”?, The Dorset Authorities. Who implements the “remit”? The Dorset Authorities. Who profits? The Dorset Authorities. To suggest the remit is wrong, but everything is ok because they are following a remit, is a bit like a driver saying “yes I was speeding but it’s ok because it is my remit to do so”. And if DRS / Dorset police does what it does due to a “remit”, why when questioned does it not say so? Expanding the scheme will of course mean jobs retained at least. I use the words probably and generally because I do not have the facts about whether or not all drivers commit and offence on every journey. But I still don’t see any drivers braking before they reach 30, 40 and 50 limits to be within the limit at all times. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:45am Sun 24 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, the reason for placement of the HBR cam was given by Pat Garrett as “not casualty reduction (!!!) but ‘community concern’”. Then DRS were completely unable to provide any relevant evidence of any such “community concern” given TWO opportunities under FOI, and the cam went on to make record making money. Let’s not go back round the loop of “if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine”, that’s been done to death.

The 30 limit is entirely inappropriately low and inconsistent with surrounding roads, against this has been done to death but it is nothing like a village or residential street, and you only have to look at the road that goes up the other side of Holes bay, through narrow streets with housing close to the road, pubs, a school, library, shops, turnings, vast ped and cyclist flow in and out of Sunseeker / the port every day without safe off-road cycle paths as there are on HBR, or the 50 limit that goes through the busy PC World shopping area to realise how ridiculously inconsistent it is. I have pointed out about the problems above that the DfT are aware of about speed limits set in isolation or too low.

If I am arrogant and bigoted now, perhaps I would not have reached this point if the council, police and DRS had shown any professionalism in the past when I was much less so.

If I ran DRS, central to my approach would be the concern about perception of my work to make money, and I would do everything possible, if I really thought what I was doing was about safety, to make this clear. I would not even think about setting up profitable activities like courses without independent quality control / proper complaint resolution as you see with all professional organisations.
Rally, the reason for placement of the HBR cam was given by Pat Garrett as “not casualty reduction (!!!) but ‘community concern’”. Then DRS were completely unable to provide any relevant evidence of any such “community concern” given TWO opportunities under FOI, and the cam went on to make record making money. Let’s not go back round the loop of “if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine”, that’s been done to death. The 30 limit is entirely inappropriately low and inconsistent with surrounding roads, against this has been done to death but it is nothing like a village or residential street, and you only have to look at the road that goes up the other side of Holes bay, through narrow streets with housing close to the road, pubs, a school, library, shops, turnings, vast ped and cyclist flow in and out of Sunseeker / the port every day without safe off-road cycle paths as there are on HBR, or the 50 limit that goes through the busy PC World shopping area to realise how ridiculously inconsistent it is. I have pointed out about the problems above that the DfT are aware of about speed limits set in isolation or too low. If I am arrogant and bigoted now, perhaps I would not have reached this point if the council, police and DRS had shown any professionalism in the past when I was much less so. If I ran DRS, central to my approach would be the concern about perception of my work to make money, and I would do everything possible, if I really thought what I was doing was about safety, to make this clear. I would not even think about setting up profitable activities like courses without independent quality control / proper complaint resolution as you see with all professional organisations. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Sun 24 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, the reason for placement of the HBR cam was given by Pat Garrett as “not casualty reduction (!!!) but ‘community concern’”. Then DRS were completely unable to provide any relevant evidence of any such “community concern” given TWO opportunities under FOI, and the cam went on to make record making money. Let’s not go back round the loop of “if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine”, that’s been done to death.

The 30 limit is entirely inappropriately low and inconsistent with surrounding roads, against this has been done to death but it is nothing like a village or residential street, and you only have to look at the road that goes up the other side of Holes bay, through narrow streets with housing close to the road, pubs, a school, library, shops, turnings, vast ped and cyclist flow in and out of Sunseeker / the port every day without safe off-road cycle paths as there are on HBR, or the 50 limit that goes through the busy PC World shopping area to realise how ridiculously inconsistent it is. I have pointed out about the problems above that the DfT are aware of about speed limits set in isolation or too low.

If I am arrogant and bigoted now, perhaps I would not have reached this point if the council, police and DRS had shown any professionalism in the past when I was much less so.

If I ran DRS, central to my approach would be the concern about perception of my work to make money, and I would do everything possible, if I really thought what I was doing was about safety, to make this clear. I would not even think about setting up profitable activities like courses without independent quality control / proper complaint resolution as you see with all professional organisations.
Hello Dorsetspeed,

And still you do not explain why the 30mph speed limit on the Holes Bay Road is an actual problem and not at worst a brief inconvenience to impatient drivers.

You wrote, 'Let’s not go back round the loop of “if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine”, that’s been done to death.'

But it is still a very true and highly pertinent fact, an integral part of the equation, so why do you want to push it aside?

You wrote, 'The 30 limit is entirely inappropriately low and inconsistent with surrounding roads,'
Your first point is subjective, your second is objective.
So, why are you not calling for lower speed limits in some, if not all, of these surrounding areas?
Why are you so focused on the HBR 30mph limit?
Increasing the HBR 30mph speed limit to whatever is not going to make these stretches of the road any safer than they already are, so why are you demanding that they be increased?
Surely the only practical gain to drivers is in the time taken to get from Hunger Hill to where the 30mph limit changes to 50mph (and vice versa)?
Given that this means only a couple of minutes or so increase in journey time, why are you so fussed by it?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, the reason for placement of the HBR cam was given by Pat Garrett as “not casualty reduction (!!!) but ‘community concern’”. Then DRS were completely unable to provide any relevant evidence of any such “community concern” given TWO opportunities under FOI, and the cam went on to make record making money. Let’s not go back round the loop of “if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine”, that’s been done to death. The 30 limit is entirely inappropriately low and inconsistent with surrounding roads, against this has been done to death but it is nothing like a village or residential street, and you only have to look at the road that goes up the other side of Holes bay, through narrow streets with housing close to the road, pubs, a school, library, shops, turnings, vast ped and cyclist flow in and out of Sunseeker / the port every day without safe off-road cycle paths as there are on HBR, or the 50 limit that goes through the busy PC World shopping area to realise how ridiculously inconsistent it is. I have pointed out about the problems above that the DfT are aware of about speed limits set in isolation or too low. If I am arrogant and bigoted now, perhaps I would not have reached this point if the council, police and DRS had shown any professionalism in the past when I was much less so. If I ran DRS, central to my approach would be the concern about perception of my work to make money, and I would do everything possible, if I really thought what I was doing was about safety, to make this clear. I would not even think about setting up profitable activities like courses without independent quality control / proper complaint resolution as you see with all professional organisations.[/p][/quote]Hello Dorsetspeed, And still you do not explain why the 30mph speed limit on the Holes Bay Road is an actual problem and not at worst a brief inconvenience to impatient drivers. You wrote, 'Let’s not go back round the loop of “if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine”, that’s been done to death.' But it is still a very true and highly pertinent fact, an integral part of the equation, so why do you want to push it aside? You wrote, 'The 30 limit is entirely inappropriately low and inconsistent with surrounding roads,' Your first point is subjective, your second is objective. So, why are you not calling for lower speed limits in some, if not all, of these surrounding areas? Why are you so focused on the HBR 30mph limit? Increasing the HBR 30mph speed limit to whatever is not going to make these stretches of the road any safer than they already are, so why are you demanding that they be increased? Surely the only practical gain to drivers is in the time taken to get from Hunger Hill to where the 30mph limit changes to 50mph (and vice versa)? Given that this means only a couple of minutes or so increase in journey time, why are you so fussed by it? Rally
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Sun 24 Jul 11

Rally says...

Hello Dorsetspeed,

You wrote, 'I still don’t see any drivers braking before they reach 30, 40 and 50 limits to be within the limit at all times.'

And your point is what, exactly?
Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, 'I still don’t see any drivers braking before they reach 30, 40 and 50 limits to be within the limit at all times.' And your point is what, exactly? Rally
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Sun 24 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, I can give you many reasons but just to keep it simple I have referred you to a couple of reasons that the DfT have mentioned already in this discussion – “"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be
ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and
avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers
continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and
injuries."

I’m not brushing aside anything, I just don’t want to repeat it all over again.

Everyone is focussed on the combination of the Holes Bay 30 limit and enforcement, just google "Holes Bay" "speed camera" and you will see.

I am not demanding the limit is increased, only that we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here, and that a speed limit increase would certainly help with this. The practical gains are far more than the time saved, for example, the problems the Dft have mentioned would be eliminated if the speed limit was a little more in tune with the characteristics of the road.
Rally, I can give you many reasons but just to keep it simple I have referred you to a couple of reasons that the DfT have mentioned already in this discussion – “"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries." I’m not brushing aside anything, I just don’t want to repeat it all over again. Everyone is focussed on the combination of the Holes Bay 30 limit and enforcement, just google "Holes Bay" "speed camera" and you will see. I am not demanding the limit is increased, only that we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here, and that a speed limit increase would certainly help with this. The practical gains are far more than the time saved, for example, the problems the Dft have mentioned would be eliminated if the speed limit was a little more in tune with the characteristics of the road. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Sun 24 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally wrote:
Hello Dorsetspeed,

You wrote, 'I still don’t see any drivers braking before they reach 30, 40 and 50 limits to be within the limit at all times.'

And your point is what, exactly?
and you were saying I was taking things out of context!
[quote][p][bold]Rally[/bold] wrote: Hello Dorsetspeed, You wrote, 'I still don’t see any drivers braking before they reach 30, 40 and 50 limits to be within the limit at all times.' And your point is what, exactly?[/p][/quote]and you were saying I was taking things out of context! dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Sun 24 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Road safety minister Mike Penning said: ‘We want to stop motorists being used as cash cows.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2008340/Cash-cow-spe
ed-cameras-named-tim
e-transparency-drive
.html#ixzz1T26OXkpH


So our “road safety minister” has had enough of it, even if it is taking money off law-breakers. Are you saying he is wrong? I'm on the side of our road safety minister, can't be much wrong with that?
Road safety minister Mike Penning said: ‘We want to stop motorists being used as cash cows. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2008340/Cash-cow-spe ed-cameras-named-tim e-transparency-drive .html#ixzz1T26OXkpH So our “road safety minister” has had enough of it, even if it is taking money off law-breakers. Are you saying he is wrong? I'm on the side of our road safety minister, can't be much wrong with that? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Sun 24 Jul 11

Rally says...

Road safety minister Mike Penning is a POLITICIAN.
What do you expect him to say?
Road safety minister Mike Penning is a POLITICIAN. What do you expect him to say? Rally
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sun 24 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I can give you many reasons but just to keep it simple I have referred you to a couple of reasons that the DfT have mentioned already in this discussion – “"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be
ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and
avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers
continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and
injuries."

I’m not brushing aside anything, I just don’t want to repeat it all over again.

Everyone is focussed on the combination of the Holes Bay 30 limit and enforcement, just google "Holes Bay" "speed camera" and you will see.

I am not demanding the limit is increased, only that we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here, and that a speed limit increase would certainly help with this. The practical gains are far more than the time saved, for example, the problems the Dft have mentioned would be eliminated if the speed limit was a little more in tune with the characteristics of the road.
Hello dorsetspeed,

You wrote: ‘Rally, I can give you many reasons but just to keep it simple I have referred you to a couple of reasons that the DfT have mentioned already in this discussion – “"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and
avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries."

I can see the sense of the DfT argument.
Now then, which, if any, of these problems are actually occurring on the HBR, thus necessitating an increase in the speed limit?
As for your, ‘I can give you many reasons…’
The DfT appear to me to have covered all the angles, so to speak, so please do enlighten me further with a couple of examples of your own.

You wrote, ‘I’m not brushing aside anything, I just don’t want to repeat it all over again.’

But surely the ‘if you don’t speed, you won’t get fined’ message needs drumming into motorists heads, and this is best done through repetition?

You wrote, ‘Everyone is focussed on the combination of the Holes Bay 30 limit and enforcement, just google "Holes Bay" "speed camera" and you will see.’

But I am asking you why you are so focussed on this issue, and I doubt your answer has anything to do with Google and the Media.

You wrote, ‘I am not demanding the limit is increased, only that we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here, and that a speed limit increase would certainly help with this. The practical gains are far more than the time saved, for example, the problems the Dft have mentioned would be eliminated if the speed limit was a little more in tune with the characteristics of the road.’

Again, which, if any, of these DfT-mentioned problems have actually occurred on the HBR since the 30mph limit was introduced?

Your ‘we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here,’ is laudable but it has precious little, if anything, to do with actual road safety – unless you can show that these 30mph stretches of the HBR are a real and present danger to drivers.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, I can give you many reasons but just to keep it simple I have referred you to a couple of reasons that the DfT have mentioned already in this discussion – “"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries." I’m not brushing aside anything, I just don’t want to repeat it all over again. Everyone is focussed on the combination of the Holes Bay 30 limit and enforcement, just google "Holes Bay" "speed camera" and you will see. I am not demanding the limit is increased, only that we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here, and that a speed limit increase would certainly help with this. The practical gains are far more than the time saved, for example, the problems the Dft have mentioned would be eliminated if the speed limit was a little more in tune with the characteristics of the road.[/p][/quote]Hello dorsetspeed, You wrote: ‘Rally, I can give you many reasons but just to keep it simple I have referred you to a couple of reasons that the DfT have mentioned already in this discussion – “"Indeed, if a speed limit is set in isolation, or is unrealistically low, it is likely to be ineffective and lead to disrespect for the speed limit. As well as requiring significant, and avoidable, enforcement costs, this may also result in substantial numbers of drivers continuing to travel at unacceptable speeds, thus increasing the risk of collisions and injuries." I can see the sense of the DfT argument. Now then, which, if any, of these problems are actually occurring on the HBR, thus necessitating an increase in the speed limit? As for your, ‘I can give you many reasons…’ The DfT appear to me to have covered all the angles, so to speak, so please do enlighten me further with a couple of examples of your own. You wrote, ‘I’m not brushing aside anything, I just don’t want to repeat it all over again.’ But surely the ‘if you don’t speed, you won’t get fined’ message needs drumming into motorists heads, and this is best done through repetition? You wrote, ‘Everyone is focussed on the combination of the Holes Bay 30 limit and enforcement, just google "Holes Bay" "speed camera" and you will see.’ But I am asking you why you are so focussed on this issue, and I doubt your answer has anything to do with Google and the Media. You wrote, ‘I am not demanding the limit is increased, only that we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here, and that a speed limit increase would certainly help with this. The practical gains are far more than the time saved, for example, the problems the Dft have mentioned would be eliminated if the speed limit was a little more in tune with the characteristics of the road.’ Again, which, if any, of these DfT-mentioned problems have actually occurred on the HBR since the 30mph limit was introduced? Your ‘we need a consistent, credible, and fair situation here,’ is laudable but it has precious little, if anything, to do with actual road safety – unless you can show that these 30mph stretches of the HBR are a real and present danger to drivers. Rally
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Sun 24 Jul 11

dorsetspeed says...

Rally, I can’t go on forever about this, I’ve given you some good comparisons with surrounding roads that the limit is too low and some problems that result from limits too low. It is clear that you won’t accept these points.

In the same way I’m not going to be drawn back into the if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine thing, because we’ll be here until Christmas and it’s got nothing to do with road safety either.

The HBR cam is the perfect example of a cash cow cam that shows that the Dorset authorities are more interested in making money, not saving life, so obviously it will feature in my views about DRS.

Whether the road is more dangerous with a 30 limit than it would be with a 40 or 50 I’m not sure, but it isn’t any safer, and it does not send a good message about speed limits in general . It simply needs to be realistic.
Rally, I can’t go on forever about this, I’ve given you some good comparisons with surrounding roads that the limit is too low and some problems that result from limits too low. It is clear that you won’t accept these points. In the same way I’m not going to be drawn back into the if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine thing, because we’ll be here until Christmas and it’s got nothing to do with road safety either. The HBR cam is the perfect example of a cash cow cam that shows that the Dorset authorities are more interested in making money, not saving life, so obviously it will feature in my views about DRS. Whether the road is more dangerous with a 30 limit than it would be with a 40 or 50 I’m not sure, but it isn’t any safer, and it does not send a good message about speed limits in general . It simply needs to be realistic. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Sun 24 Jul 11

Rally says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I can’t go on forever about this, I’ve given you some good comparisons with surrounding roads that the limit is too low and some problems that result from limits too low. It is clear that you won’t accept these points.

In the same way I’m not going to be drawn back into the if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine thing, because we’ll be here until Christmas and it’s got nothing to do with road safety either.

The HBR cam is the perfect example of a cash cow cam that shows that the Dorset authorities are more interested in making money, not saving life, so obviously it will feature in my views about DRS.

Whether the road is more dangerous with a 30 limit than it would be with a 40 or 50 I’m not sure, but it isn’t any safer, and it does not send a good message about speed limits in general . It simply needs to be realistic.
'...It is clear that you won’t accept these points.'
Not at all, dorsetspeed.
It is a genuine case of me being unable to recall offhand the information/points you allege to have already told me about.

The remainder of your post is not worth responding to.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Rally, I can’t go on forever about this, I’ve given you some good comparisons with surrounding roads that the limit is too low and some problems that result from limits too low. It is clear that you won’t accept these points. In the same way I’m not going to be drawn back into the if you don’t speed you don’t get a fine thing, because we’ll be here until Christmas and it’s got nothing to do with road safety either. The HBR cam is the perfect example of a cash cow cam that shows that the Dorset authorities are more interested in making money, not saving life, so obviously it will feature in my views about DRS. Whether the road is more dangerous with a 30 limit than it would be with a 40 or 50 I’m not sure, but it isn’t any safer, and it does not send a good message about speed limits in general . It simply needs to be realistic.[/p][/quote]'...It is clear that you won’t accept these points.' Not at all, dorsetspeed. It is a genuine case of me being unable to recall offhand the information/points you allege to have already told me about. The remainder of your post is not worth responding to. Rally
  • Score: 0

11:21am Mon 25 Jul 11

Rally says...

Hello dorsetspeed,

Thought this Daily Mail article and the responses to it might be of some interest to you.
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2018283/Fast-loose-l
aw-Average-Briton-br
eak-speed-limit-18-0
00-times-life.html
Hello dorsetspeed, Thought this Daily Mail article and the responses to it might be of some interest to you. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2018283/Fast-loose-l aw-Average-Briton-br eak-speed-limit-18-0 00-times-life.html Rally
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree