Lights, camera – and action over speeding drivers in Poole (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Lights, camera – and action over speeding drivers in Poole
8:00am Wednesday 1st July 2009 in
DRIVERS in Poole need to be on their best behaviour from today as traffic light cameras start to catch speeding drivers.
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP) is making the move as part of a drive to meet the government target of a 40 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road collisions by 2010.
Under the “speed on green” idea, the red light safety cameras which previously only nabbed drivers jumping red lights will now also be used to catch speeding vehicles when the light is green.
The idea is being introduced in Poole at the junction of Holes Bay Road and Sterte Road, where the limit is 30mph, and could be used elsewhere later.
Keep up-to-date with the latest traffic and travel news
Simply click Info in the navigation bar above to find out the latest traffic and roadworks for your route
But anti-speed camera group Dorset Speed has rubbished the plans, saying they are aimed only at making money.
A spokesman called it “almost certainly the most ridiculous speed enforcement ever set up, anywhere” and said: “This has one of the most inappropriate and therefore widely-ignored 30 limits in the area.
“It is not an accident blackspot, and yet it will be enforced with rigid 30mph detection 24 hours a day. The income generated will be huge, the benefit to road safety virtually nothing.”
But Johnny Stephens, head of fixed penalties at the DSCP, said: “We have been conducting trials at various traffic light junctions in Dorset.
“The results have not been used for enforcement purposes, but have alerted us to the alarming number of vehicles speeding while crossing the junctions.
“Exceeding the speed limit through a traffic light junction is extremely dangerous and this initiative is designed to ensure that collisions are prevented by ensuring that drivers abide with legal and appropriate speeds.”
Comments(70)
AKKA
says...
8:16am Wed 1 Jul 09
If the new white elephant - oops -bridge ever gets built the limit will be superfluous.
You'll be more likely to get a parking ticket whilst you are stuck in the jams. Maybe I shouldn't give them ideas.
Security word: town-girl
poole.weller
says...
8:49am Wed 1 Jul 09
All the potential killers in their cars breaking the law and looking mad.
Great sport.
poolebabe
says...
9:16am Wed 1 Jul 09
Tig
says...
9:37am Wed 1 Jul 09
So under FOI can we see the data that justifies spending money on this?
30mph at this junction is ridiculously slow anyway.
In Absentia
says...
9:39am Wed 1 Jul 09
This is a revenue based scheme only and to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie. With a red light camera in place already, this new measure is not needed.
nobull
says...
10:01am Wed 1 Jul 09
!
Helper and Seeker
says...
10:37am Wed 1 Jul 09
kinc
says...
10:40am Wed 1 Jul 09
Definite money maker at this junction so many people go through at not an unreasonable speed, only danger is hitting other vehicles which will happen more if you get a drivers doing the speed limit.
Before the anti-speed brigade start how many accidents can you remember going through this junction? Two for me!
gerbil112
says...
10:49am Wed 1 Jul 09
In Absentia wrote:It has to drop at some point, even if it's at the Hunger Hill roundabout. It will still be a "sudden drop" in your words. Every road has a "sudden drop" at some point, look at all the A Roads through villages around Dorset. There's a "sudden drop" as you enter villages, and an equally "sudden rise" as you leave the village.
The main problem for drivers is as you approach Poole and there's the sudden drop from a 50 mph to a 30 mph limit. This is a revenue based scheme only and to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie. With a red light camera in place already, this new measure is not needed.
Incidentally, there's also a drop from 70 down to 50 as you approach the Fire Station roundabout on Dorset Way, totally ignored by most drivers!
cantique
says...
10:55am Wed 1 Jul 09
Bournehammer68
says...
11:38am Wed 1 Jul 09
“The results have not been used for enforcement purposes, but have alerted us to the alarming number of vehicles speeding while crossing the junctions.
And during these trials how many accidents occured? not a single one which just goes to prove that this is just another money maker disguised as health and safety. DISGUSTING!
Tony Starr
says...
11:47am Wed 1 Jul 09
miketheplumb
says...
12:34pm Wed 1 Jul 09
gerbil112 wrote:Oh good ANOTHER place to site camera's and make more money cool. What with rising fuel costs, insurance increases, cost of servicing and raw materials rising, adding yet more burdens to those who must use vehicles. Given we struggle to catch "speeding" cyclists, I suppose it's abck to the good ol' motorist. One thing for sure HB will be the most profitable road in Dorset, more money for our MP's to squander on second homes.
In Absentia wrote: The main problem for drivers is as you approach Poole and there's the sudden drop from a 50 mph to a 30 mph limit. This is a revenue based scheme only and to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie. With a red light camera in place already, this new measure is not needed.It has to drop at some point, even if it's at the Hunger Hill roundabout. It will still be a "sudden drop" in your words. Every road has a "sudden drop" at some point, look at all the A Roads through villages around Dorset. There's a "sudden drop" as you enter villages, and an equally "sudden rise" as you leave the village. Incidentally, there's also a drop from 70 down to 50 as you approach the Fire Station roundabout on Dorset Way, totally ignored by most drivers!
Perry_Winkle
says...
12:52pm Wed 1 Jul 09
cantique wrote:No, cantique, the people who complain about these cameras are more likely to be people sick of lying politicians spending our money on schemes that are nothing more than scams, and pretending they're doing it for our own good. There are a hundred other things that are much more worthy of funding than this hair-brained scam. Road deaths are now at their lowest since 1926 - in view of how many more cars there are now on the roads, and how much faster they are capable of travelling, that's some statement. The law of diminishing returns makes it obvious that we are now just throwing increasing amounts of money at the problem for smaller and smaller gains.
The 30 mph signs are on the approach to the lights, so traffice should be slowing down anyway. If motorists were to keep to the speed limits, there would be no revenue from these cameras. The people who complain about cameras are those who have no respect for anyone else on the road, and will speed regardless of any safety considerations, even if they do get the occasional fine.
java
says...
12:53pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Localsfirst
says...
1:24pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Yes - they're busy installing a sneaky speed camera on the Holes Bay road to milk even more money out of skint motorists while real crimes in the community are totally ignored.
This new camera is obscenely dangerous: drivers will slam on their brakes as the lights change to amber to avoid getting flashed, and other cars who don't know about the sneaky cam will tailgate law-abiding drivers obaying the speed limit - causing even more accidents. This is a money making racket that endangeres lives for the sake of greedy police revenue - and that's all the cops care about; nothing else.
Poole is finished.
verwoodbadger
says...
2:32pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Localsfirst wrote:While I whole heartedly agree with your comments about the Police's inability to deal with real crime issues I have to say that a sensible driver approaching ANY set of traffic lights should be prepared to stop if the lights changed to amber/red and so your comment regarding accidents caused by sudden braking is irrelevant. That risk will continue until ignorant, foolish drivers realise that tailgating is dangerous…
Recently we've had muggings in Bournemouth, a teenage girl pushed into traffic by a girl gang, an MP attacked in Boscombe, drugs crime, animals hacked to death on the Bourne Estate with residents terrorised and property vandalised, a baby deer stamped to death by yobs at Upton country Park - and what are the police doing about it? Yes - they're busy installing a sneaky speed camera on the Holes Bay road to milk even more money out of skint motorists while real crimes in the community are totally ignored. This new camera is obscenely dangerous: drivers will slam on their brakes as the lights change to amber to avoid getting flashed, and other cars who don't know about the sneaky cam will tailgate law-abiding drivers obaying the speed limit - causing even more accidents. This is a money making racket that endangeres lives for the sake of greedy police revenue - and that's all the cops care about; nothing else. Poole is finished.
The issue here is that these cameras are aimed at those who drive through GREEN lights at more than the posted speed limit, not (just) those who drive through on red, and there are plenty of those about believe me; Spend just 5 minutes at the Fleets Bridge roundabout and you’ll see loads of drivers who sail through AFTER the lights have changed to red. They are the drivers the Police should be targeting, not those who drive through a green light at 35mph!
Localsfirst
says...
3:28pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Everyone will be crossing this junction with their eyes focued on their speedometer and not concentrating on the road. It's a money making racket that makes this stretch of road incredibly dangerous
magicmonkey
says...
4:00pm Wed 1 Jul 09
poolebabe wrote:Course not - cash raised is split between the treasury (central govt) and the local police who run the camera safety partnership.
Kerching!! The extra revenue will mean the council tax will go down??? NOT!!
********************
Accidents are at an all time low and many are non-preventable or not down to speed.
Hospitals are dirty but all infections could be prevented if wards were properly cleaned.
But keeping hospitals clean doesn't make money, does it?
So don't believe the camera safety partnership when they say it's all about saving lives. As with most things in this world - it all about the money...
BrianBrain
says...
4:03pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Whilst they are located specifically to just cash in on a momentary lack of concentration they will fail to gain any.
The comment has already been made that someone doing just a couple of miles an hour over the limit is going to get done.
What is acutally getting done about the drugged and boozed up lunatics that tool around so wacked out of their gourds that they cant drive at 30 so escape? The answer is nothing and beleive me the Police would love to have the resources to be able to pursue these people. However they cannot because the goverment insists they spend 60% of the working day filling in bits of paper for everything.
The whole policing and implimentation of road safety needs to be trashed and reworked actually involving front line coppers, road safety organisations such as the AA & RAC and a driving professional organisation such as the IAM. Then how about involving the RHA get them all together and sort somthing that will improve safety and the driving experiance.
Mullerman
says...
4:50pm Wed 1 Jul 09
ltm
says...
5:19pm Wed 1 Jul 09
ltm
says...
5:26pm Wed 1 Jul 09
ltm wrote:opps, not sure where the "Keep up-to-date with the latest traffic and travel news" bit came from.
Keep up-to-date with the latest traffic and travel newshmmm, I have a couple of old tires and a can of petrol in my shed...
Frank Spencer
says...
6:11pm Wed 1 Jul 09
PokesdownMark
says...
6:21pm Wed 1 Jul 09
1 lots of drivers are currently exceeding the limit - presumably by a modest amount in the vast majority of cases.
2 they say that speeding through junctions is extremely dangerous.
So for that to be true there must have been a whole catalog of serious accidents resulting in death and serious injury at the locations involved.
The fact that there hasn't reveals the true motivation. Which is not money as some have commented. Its actually slightly worse than that. The motivation is simply the need to do something. Do anything. Its a common problem with publicly funded bodies. They have to keep coming up with new things to justify themselves. Which tends to result in short sighted actions and good ideas simply taken too far. Such as parking meters springing up in silly places.
paul2
says...
8:00pm Wed 1 Jul 09
Localsfirst wrote:Is it not possible to focus on the road and keep within the speed limit if you try? Why is it so difficult to do this and how did you pass the driving test?
A nice bit of PR for the Dorset Revenue Camera Partnership verwoodbadger but it won't wash with anyone with an ounce of common sense. Everyone will be crossing this junction with their eyes focued on their speedometer and not concentrating on the road. It's a money making racket that makes this stretch of road incredibly dangerous
Nick2
says...
8:10pm Wed 1 Jul 09
It is completely irrelevant if the cameras make money, they catch law breakers.
Why question that offenders get punished?
After all, you do not get an automatic ban if caught (unless your speed is really excessive). You only get 3 points and £60. That should give you a wake up call that something is wrong with your stile of driving. Amend it and you will never get another one!
If they do make money, then part of it goes into police coffers, which reduces their need for a share of my council tax. According
Personally I think the police should keep ALL the monies generated. If the partnership stopped using it for stupid road campaigns that do not work, then perhaps the police would not need to make any claims on my council tax at all.
Catch more I say!
Put them at the start of every reduction in mandatory speed limits and re- introduce the speed trap (those with no prior warning)!
Tango Charlie
says...
8:21pm Wed 1 Jul 09
After passing the news on to a couple that their child has been killed in a RTC and watching their devastation….
I say anything that makes drivers slow down and take more care is a good thing.
gerbil112
says...
10:00pm Wed 1 Jul 09
s trying to beat the lights. There are red-light cameras there but they seem ineffective as vehicles pass the lights at speed on amber (Which incidentally, in my copy of the Highway Code, means STOP)!
Hampshire Dorset
says...
11:10pm Wed 1 Jul 09
shrekmizen
says...
12:02am Thu 2 Jul 09
nobull wrote:sounds a good plan ! maybe that way they would listen to us poole residents !
Any chace we (the motorist)could fine the council if we can't get anywhere near the 30mph limit cos of all the roadworks!!!!!!!!!!!
!
EGHH
says...
7:06am Thu 2 Jul 09
Security word = find-data
Zzzz
says...
10:33am Thu 2 Jul 09
DanInPoole
says...
11:53am Thu 2 Jul 09
catch uninsured drivers, catch unlicenced or disqualified drivers, catch drunk or drugged drivers, catch dangerous driving, tailgating or any other dangerous road usage. It just triggers if a car is exceeding the speed limit. Therefore it's a SPEED camera.
If people figured out how to cross the road properly, they wouldn't get run over!
Insurgent
says...
2:11pm Thu 2 Jul 09
security word:Cold-fear
jackiepipe
says...
3:10pm Thu 2 Jul 09
benjamin
says...
5:43pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Insurgent wrote:At lasst a good idea! Get it organised and I will join in any direct action. We need to stand up for commonsence. England has the highest traffic density of all Europe and the lowest fatality rate!
This needs a maximum impact idea so someone needs to do a go slow protest. 30mph from the Holes bay roundabout into poole town centre ad back again in both lanes for a few hours or just boycott the Holes bay road altogether and use another way in. The authorities are just raping us of our hard earned cash when they're the one who make US late! security word:Cold-fear
dorsetspeed
says...
7:59pm Thu 2 Jul 09
It is important to protest about this, please email me (from the website) if you agree that this is going too far.
Sadly, although the majority believe so, many will just take the fines and not have the time or inclination to argue about it - this is why the DSCP gets away with it.
If I get more than 100 support emails, I will try to set something up. Your email counts!
Cheers, Ian
Gardengnome
says...
12:29am Fri 3 Jul 09
benjamin
says...
10:24pm Fri 3 Jul 09
dorsetspeed wrote:Thanks Ian. have looked at your website and it is very good. I fully suport you and I wish you every success.
Thanks all for your support. Please see my full article on dorsetspeed.org.uk. It is important to protest about this, please email me (from the website) if you agree that this is going too far. Sadly, although the majority believe so, many will just take the fines and not have the time or inclination to argue about it - this is why the DSCP gets away with it. If I get more than 100 support emails, I will try to set something up. Your email counts! Cheers, Ian
dorsetspeed
says...
10:51pm Fri 3 Jul 09
The fact that there are so many bad drivers out there helps to show that current road safety activities (which are almost totally reliant on cameras) do not work. We want proper policing on the roads, targeting all forms of bad driving. We also want some kind of effort to improve road efficiency and to reduce congestion, which could be so easily done with a few common sense improvements. We want a reduction in accident counts and severity.
We know that this is unlikely to be achieved with limits which are far too low being used to raise large numbers of fines.
stuartc73
says...
2:05am Sat 4 Jul 09
Nick2
says...
5:16pm Sat 4 Jul 09
10:51pm Fri 3 Jul 09
……are not against the principal of using cameras for enforcement, but are strongly against them when they will clearly result in many fines to people driving completely safely……
………………
………………
…..
BUT, faster than the law allows:-
So if you want to break the law, start here. With popular public support you will be able to let the nutters on the road drive as they will. Most of them do already after all!
For goodness sake. The police can not afford to put more Tango Units on the road at the moment. It would come out of our Council tax if they did and everyone would moan then too.
For one extra car.
1 x Fast Car + 2 Coppers per shift and one Sgt…..
£30,000 + (£22,000 x2) x3 + £35,000. Plus maintenance too….
Who knows, when you have beaten the camera perhaps will be allowed to beat your partner. With enough public support…… who knows?….
Nick2
says...
5:48pm Sat 4 Jul 09
dorsetspeed wrote:I like this bit from your website DS…
Thanks all for your support. Please see my full article on dorsetspeed.org.uk. It is important to protest about this, please email me (from the website) if you agree that this is going too far. Sadly, although the majority believe so, many will just take the fines and not have the time or inclination to argue about it - this is why the DSCP gets away with it. If I get more than 100 support emails, I will try to set something up. Your email counts! Cheers, Ian
Permanent speed limits too low: Wessex Way (Bournemouth), A31, St. Leonards, 50 MPH
http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/problems.a
spx
..........
A major road cutting in between two halves of a town. You think it is wrong to limit the speed?
In St. Leonards you have the OAPs cutting across to catch the bus. The traffic slowing down to turn into the Hospital or Camping Area…
Between the Cooper Dean Roundabout and Springbourne, you have the kids using the carriageway as a short cut as they can not be ars*d to go to the roundabout.
Of course you should have included Ringwood Road between Bear Cross and Poole Lane.
A duel carriageway with a 40 MPH limit. Far too slow isn’t it?
But here a little girl in a pushchair was killed in 2006 when her mum crossed the road 200 yards away from the crossing.
When you have a Highway Code that made the car driver responsible for the stupidity of pedestrians by stating that the driver HAS TO anticipate the actions of others, the driver has no chance. If he is breaking the law as well then he stands no chance in court. The little 2 year old girl from this weeks news is another example.
You only have to take your eyes off them for a second and they are gone…
In Germany, if you run over a pedestrian and they have broken the Highway LAW, then they pay for the damage to your car. Not here!
paul2
says...
9:19pm Sat 4 Jul 09
Nick2 wrote:Well done Nick2, your comments are absolutely first class. It is worrying to read so many negative comments and WHY - WHY - WHY do so many drivers have to drive so fast with their foot down to the floor?
dorsetspeed wrote: Thanks all for your support. Please see my full article on dorsetspeed.org.uk. It is important to protest about this, please email me (from the website) if you agree that this is going too far. Sadly, although the majority believe so, many will just take the fines and not have the time or inclination to argue about it - this is why the DSCP gets away with it. If I get more than 100 support emails, I will try to set something up. Your email counts! Cheers, IanI like this bit from your website DS… Permanent speed limits too low: Wessex Way (Bournemouth), A31, St. Leonards, 50 MPH http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/problems.a spx .......... A major road cutting in between two halves of a town. You think it is wrong to limit the speed? In St. Leonards you have the OAPs cutting across to catch the bus. The traffic slowing down to turn into the Hospital or Camping Area… Between the Cooper Dean Roundabout and Springbourne, you have the kids using the carriageway as a short cut as they can not be ars*d to go to the roundabout. Of course you should have included Ringwood Road between Bear Cross and Poole Lane. A duel carriageway with a 40 MPH limit. Far too slow isn’t it? But here a little girl in a pushchair was killed in 2006 when her mum crossed the road 200 yards away from the crossing. When you have a Highway Code that made the car driver responsible for the stupidity of pedestrians by stating that the driver HAS TO anticipate the actions of others, the driver has no chance. If he is breaking the law as well then he stands no chance in court. The little 2 year old girl from this weeks news is another example. You only have to take your eyes off them for a second and they are gone… In Germany, if you run over a pedestrian and they have broken the Highway LAW, then they pay for the damage to your car. Not here!
dorsetspeed
says...
9:53pm Sat 4 Jul 09
Do you believe that there is widespread respect for speed limits, and the few that deviate a little bit over are virtually murderers? If you have experience on the road, I don’t think you do. Do you understand the difference between doing 36 on a very wide dual carriageway (the type of problem I’m suggesting should not be targeted beyond all others), and driving too close, driving MUCH too fast, not using lanes correctly, eating and smoking while driving, rubber necking, not adjusting your speed to the road you are joining on slipways, etc, etc, all of which are actually likely to cause accidents and are seen all the time?
So the operation like that at Holes Bay is like polishing the door handle on a rusty car that’s falling to bits. Yes there are horrific accidents all over the place all the time – this is proof that what is being done is not working. If you want to solve all these problems by reducing speed and increasing enforcement, you won’t succeed until we have 5 MPH limits everywhere and cameras every 20 yards on all roads.
I actually think it would be better if the law (particularly on speed) was not broken so much. But the main result of current activities is reduced respect for the law, the police and speed limits.
Speed limits must not be set well below the natural safe speed for a road, and should be intelligently enforced in balance with enforcement for other driving problems.
Of course proper policing is affordable, if you look at the full picture. The cost of an accident is huge, ambulances, hospital beds, intensive care, rehabilitation and long term recovery, not to mention personal and financial costs, and those caught up in the aftermath of road traffic disasters. The amount you mention would be saved probably 20 times over if such a team prevented just one serious accident in a year – I think they’d probably prevent 1 a week.
But of course the money would not flow through the same rotten fingers, so complete common sense approaches like this won’t happen. The system as it is, is completely rotten.
I don’t want to see cameras or speed limits removed, I just want some common sense and like everyone, I want to see fewer accidents on the road and better traffic flow.
dorsetspeed
says...
10:00pm Sat 4 Jul 09
You need to understand the difference between “driving so fast with foot to the floor” and driving at 36 through the Holes / Sterte junction,
You could be coming down Holes Bay at 50 (already quite slow for the road type) and take your foot off the accelerator and just free wheel down a dual carriageway, and probably go through the lights over 30!
These situations really are at opposite ends of the scale!
Nick2
says...
11:03pm Sat 4 Jul 09
What licences do you hold? I have a full set!
I have driven a 120n tonne tank (a concrete covered Centurion on Sennelager Ranges), 60 tonne Tank Transporters, 38 tonne HGV1 Arctic trucks in the UK (ADR Tankers) and on the continent, busses and coaches in the UK.
I’ve driven police cars and now I drive Ambulances.
It worries me how little people know about the law.
In my youth I remember thinking “OK, I’ve passed my test, now I know everything!”
How wrong I was!
Take the Highway Code. Written by a committee. It is not as good as a Highway Law. “You should not park on a Junction”. NOT LAW, but common sense. Why? Because an Arctic turning down a street has a 10 foot overhang and WILL take the car out when turning.
Same speed limits. You get 3 seconds at amber. OK in a car at 30MPH but no good at all in a bus at 40MPH.
It is against the law for a bus driver to break sharply. If he damages his passengers he will probably get sued. It is better to take the 3 points and £60 and go though a red light than to go to court for a civil suit for injuries.
For the last 20 years the manufactures have had to make sure that the vehicle are built so that pedestrians can survive at certain speed limits.
I get to attend some stupid people who think they know best. After the Fire Brigade has cut them free they may survive. For me this has to do with the manufacturers specification, their ability and the speed they were travelling. I follow the law. I would suggest that others do too.
So. How quick can you stop a tanker holding 23,000 litres of fuel when a car cut you up doing 3 MPH faster than you? If you brake in front of one of these it is suicide. If you cause it tom swerve then it could well be murder.
Death by dangerous driving is, surprisingly, still an offence. One that destroys families but only get 7 years. An average family car weighs over 1.2 tonnes. That is a lot to stop. For me, if you run someone down because you speed, YOU ARE A MURDERER.
Tango Charlie
says...
12:02am Sun 5 Jul 09
You are given a certain amount of leeway.
Although Dorset does not give it’s own criteria other forces do.
It averages out at Speed Limit + 10% +2.
So a 30Mph zone is 30 + 3 +2 Mph = 35Mph before the cameras flash.
If you can not drive in this zone you should not drive at all.
Traffic Officers can stop you at anything above 30 Mph though, so you can get away with more with cameras than you can with Cops!!
samsmith
says...
10:50am Sun 5 Jul 09
It's like taking the road and then obliterating the surrounding environment and not factoring it in when choosing the speed you travel at.
The Holes Bay Road is approaching a large built up area in one direction - requiring a change of speed and a change of mind from 70mph roads to 30mph. And vice versa.
For some people (inexperienced new drivers, some older drivers and some angry drivers) I should imagine they need that intermediate zone to alter their driving style.
You've got foot-paths/cycle ways flanking The Holes Bay Road which you don't have on the Dorset Way/Upton Bypass, it also has a tight bend in the road (by the Mercedes garage), you also get people parking on the verge to go fishing... all of the above things the Upton Bypass and Dorset Way lack.
paul2
says...
12:07pm Sun 5 Jul 09
dorsetspeed wrote:No, I am not related to Nick2 except I relate positively to his comments and that I also hold a car, motorcycle and PCV licence and that it has been completely clean so far for ten years (is your licence clean, by the way?).
Paul2, (any relation to Nick2?) You need to understand the difference between “driving so fast with foot to the floor” and driving at 36 through the Holes / Sterte junction, You could be coming down Holes Bay at 50 (already quite slow for the road type) and take your foot off the accelerator and just free wheel down a dual carriageway, and probably go through the lights over 30! These situations really are at opposite ends of the scale!
I do agree with some of your comments especially with keeping driving distance (response/braking distance): how can you police this? Perhaps the only solution then is to slow down traffic to minimise any potential damage and injury on collision. What about an intermediate 40mph sign between 50 (placed further up the road) and 30mph to produce a smoother braking effort? My comment - "Driving so fast with foot to the floor" was in relation to general standards of driving and not to a particular stretch of road.
oneshortleg
says...
5:27pm Sun 5 Jul 09
Here are some of the rules governing the placement of speed cameras:
At least 4 KSI per km in last three calendar years (not per annum)
At least 8 PIA per km in last three calendar years
Causation factors indicate that speeding was a contributory factor in some or all of the accidents – sites that are clearly not speed-related have been de-selected
85th percentile speed at least 10% above speed limit plus 2mph - i.e. 35mph in a 30 zone) for free-flowing traffic (excluding any rush-hour periods)
At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit
KSI means "killed or seriously injured"
PIA means "personal injury accident"
Its about time people started looking at the rules of where these cameras can be placed and started to challege the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership.
dorsetspeed
says...
10:01pm Sun 5 Jul 09
I acknowledge your obvious skills and experience, but let’s consider some basic facts:
- we have a unacceptable accident rate
- we have widespread disregard of speed limits
- we have dismal driving standards
- the law is not always correct. MPs can buy “Duck islands” at the taxpayers expense, “within the law”. Where the law is not correct, it is correct to challenge it.
- we have widespread speed limit inconsistencies, considering the characteristics of the road, and the fact that the safe speed to drive is actually hugely dependant of time of day, weather conditions, how busy the road is, whether there’s a lorry behind you, etc etc (although braking capability is determined by coefficient of friction, which is the same regardless of weight) . Therefore, a fixed speed limit for a road can only be considered an approximation. To enforce it unintelligently under the assumption that the worst possible combination of circumstances constantly WILL result in responsible, safe drivers, taking into account very carefully all the factors, receiving fines for driving dangerously (too fast).
This in itself might not be considered excessive enforcement. But when you compare this to the obvious bad driving that there is on the roads, and what obviously needs to be targeted, it really is completely wrong.
Remember, the objective is to reduce accident counts, obviously.
I’ve seen people driving at 10 MPH in 20 limits who should be locked up (not slowing when people walk into the road in an area where peds obviously have priority). They’ll never get speeding fines. But at Holes Bay, people will get fines for driving through a junction you could land a Jumbo Jet on (slight exaggeration perhaps!) in the middle of the night when it is clear to see there isn’t another car for miles around, for doing 36.
We need to target dangerous drivers, not those who drive a tiny percentage over arbitrary limits, when this can obviously be totally safe.
dorsetspeed
says...
10:08pm Sun 5 Jul 09
Yes, my license is clean right now, but like many, perhaps less due to speed limit compliance then by knowing how to avoid detection – another serious fault with current policy.
Just because methods may not be obvious to target the right problems does not make it right to over-target the wrong problems. I (as a computer vision engineer) have actually offered to the DSCP methods by which they could detect a wide variety of driving and vehicle problems, but have been ignored. The fact is that a despite low driving standards, a small percentage of people drive badly, so it is not commercially attractive for the partnerships to consider this. They are only interested in enforcements will return good cash.
Nick2
says...
10:29pm Sun 5 Jul 09
What is the difference between a fact and a belief?
A fact has proven evidence and a belief is one person’s prerogative.
My question was:-
What driving qualifications do you hold to put your point forward? Where do you get your experience?
Have you actually driven anything bigger than a car?
………………
…..
A few years ago (2005) a young lad killed his 3 passengers in Holes Bay. In Court he said “ I was not going too fast, I was only doing 100MPH (In a 50 zone).
Speed is a perspective too. Some can, most can’t. Just because you think you know better does not mean that you actually do.
Nick2
says...
10:43pm Sun 5 Jul 09
When I used to drive police cars at the correct speed limit no one overtook me! They knew that is was wrong and they could be punished.
When I drove ambulances with a sick patient on board I get cut up. Why? Because they can!
Would you cut up an ambulance with your sick mum on board? Others do!
dorsetspeed
says...
10:46pm Sun 5 Jul 09
dorsetspeed
says...
10:52pm Sun 5 Jul 09
Nick2, “They knew that is was wrong and they could be punished. They knew that is was wrong and they could be punished.” Probably actually, they just thought about the fine, not that what they were doing was wrong, or they wouldn’t have been doing it in the first place.
If my sick mum was on board, I’d cut up anyone (but try to give them a polite signal that I had an emergency)
mikeh2000
says...
6:23pm Mon 6 Jul 09
dorsetspeed wrote:Of course proper policing is affordable, if you look at the full picture. The cost of an accident is huge, ambulances, hospital beds, intensive care, rehabilitation and long term recovery, not to mention personal and financial costs, and those caught up in the aftermath of road traffic disasters. The amount you mention would be saved probably 20 times over if such a team prevented just one serious accident in a year – I think they’d probably prevent 1 a week.
Nick2, Do you believe that there is widespread respect for speed limits, and the few that deviate a little bit over are virtually murderers? If you have experience on the road, I don’t think you do. Do you understand the difference between doing 36 on a very wide dual carriageway (the type of problem I’m suggesting should not be targeted beyond all others), and driving too close, driving MUCH too fast, not using lanes correctly, eating and smoking while driving, rubber necking, not adjusting your speed to the road you are joining on slipways, etc, etc, all of which are actually likely to cause accidents and are seen all the time? So the operation like that at Holes Bay is like polishing the door handle on a rusty car that’s falling to bits. Yes there are horrific accidents all over the place all the time – this is proof that what is being done is not working. If you want to solve all these problems by reducing speed and increasing enforcement, you won’t succeed until we have 5 MPH limits everywhere and cameras every 20 yards on all roads. I actually think it would be better if the law (particularly on speed) was not broken so much. But the main result of current activities is reduced respect for the law, the police and speed limits. Speed limits must not be set well below the natural safe speed for a road, and should be intelligently enforced in balance with enforcement for other driving problems. Of course proper policing is affordable, if you look at the full picture. The cost of an accident is huge, ambulances, hospital beds, intensive care, rehabilitation and long term recovery, not to mention personal and financial costs, and those caught up in the aftermath of road traffic disasters. The amount you mention would be saved probably 20 times over if such a team prevented just one serious accident in a year – I think they’d probably prevent 1 a week. But of course the money would not flow through the same rotten fingers, so complete common sense approaches like this won’t happen. The system as it is, is completely rotten. I don’t want to see cameras or speed limits removed, I just want some common sense and like everyone, I want to see fewer accidents on the road and better traffic flow.
With regards to the above quote, there's a big difference with regards to funding.
If the Police investigate a serious road traffic collision, then the costs are claimed back from the Government, but to put more Police on the road has to be paid for from the Force budget, which is the second lowest in the country, and as such the only way to get more police would be to put the council tax up, which nobody, myself included, would want.
dorsetspeed
says...
8:28pm Mon 6 Jul 09
This is basically exactly my point. Current politics / structure does not encourage the right road safety activities, and some “joined up thinking” is needed to make what could obviously work so well happen.
However, just because the politics / structure is all wrong, does not excuse over enforcing one particular problem, exactly what I am protesting about.
I find it extraordinary that anyone would support doing all the wrong things just because of who pays what, when the correct approach would obviously save money overall, not to mention lives.
Nick2
says...
10:45pm Mon 6 Jul 09
dorsetspeed wrote:I said…”They knew that is was wrong and they could be punished….”
Not sure where the “Keep up to date …” bit in my previous message came from. Nick2, “They knew that is was wrong and they could be punished. They knew that is was wrong and they could be punished.” Probably actually, they just thought about the fine, not that what they were doing was wrong, or they wouldn’t have been doing it in the first place. If my sick mum was on board, I’d cut up anyone (but try to give them a polite signal that I had an emergency)
You said …”Probably actually, they just thought about the fine, not that what they were doing was wrong”….
Yes, the fine IS the punishment. It seems to me that the only way most people realise that they are doing wrong is when they get a fine, or have a collision.
………
I said…. “..When I drove ambulances with a sick patient on board I get cut up. Why? Because they can!”..
You said… “..If my sick mum was on board, I’d cut up anyone (but try to give them a polite signal that I had an emergency..)”
So, if your sick mum was on board the ambulance you would still cut it up, but give the driver a polite signal?
Now which signal would you use? Here are the ones allowed in the Highway Code.
http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/S
ignsandmarkings/inde
x.htm
Take your pick!
………
But you still have not given me any idea about how or where you get your evidence.
I take it that it is based on your personal point of view. (In other words, a basic Certificate of Competence).
I repeat my earlier question. Do you hold any other licences other than a car one?
Do you have any experience of driving larger vehicles or even towing a trailer?
Did you know for example, that if a Tanker stops quickly the fluid inside run up against the bulkhead, sloshes to the rear, then slams back against the bulkhead like a giant hammer? This can push a tanker 2 yards forward, even with breaks locked! (Fantastic for those who break without looking in a mirror.)
But don’t worry. Cameras WILL soon go.
At last cars are now being with a Sat Nav that controls it’s speed. At the moment they can be turned off and so are voluntary. But if all ignore the law of the road, who knows?
They may fit ones that broadcast your speed 100% of the time, so you get speed checked throughout your whole journey.
Nick2
says...
11:04pm Mon 6 Jul 09
mikeh2000, Poole says...
6:23pm Mon 6 Jul 09
………..“Of course proper policing is affordable, if you look at the full picture. The cost of an accident is huge, ambulances, hospital beds, intensive care, rehabilitation and long term recovery, not to mention personal and financial costs, and those caught up in the aftermath of road traffic disasters. The amount you mention would be saved probably 20 times over if such a team prevented just one serious accident in a year – I think they’d probably prevent 1 a week. “……………
---------
You base this statement on what evidence?
Dorset Police stopped recruiting for years as they can not afford to train officers. Hants are even cutting front line staff due to their budget.
As for the savings. Overall yes, but in reality it comes out of different budgets. Police, NHS, Fire Brigade and council. Each has it’s own accounts manager that does not give two hoots for the other account holders.
-----------
…….“With regards to the above quote, there's a big difference with regards to funding.
If the Police investigate a serious road traffic collision, then the costs are claimed back from the Government, but to put more Police on the road has to be paid for from the Force budget, which is the second lowest in the country, and as such the only way to get more police would be to put the council tax up, which nobody, myself included, would want.”……
So put more cameras and catch those breaking the law! The cost should be carried by those who have no respect for others. Not by our road tax.
Nick2
says...
11:17pm Mon 6 Jul 09
If you really want to speed take a holiday in Germany. Currently there are NO speed limits on most of the Autobahns. Get it out of your system but you may have to be quick.
The Green Party are trying to get an enforceable speed limit on there too, of 60MPH (100KPH).
dorsetspeed
says...
8:16am Tue 7 Jul 09
We clearly won’t converge to a compromise, but just to answer some of your points:
-On the point of “evidence”, my views are simple common sense and supported by the vast majority. If you strongly disagree with any of my factual statements, I’d be interested to hear which.
-You seem to think that there are only 3 possible outcomes to driving: Drive within the speed limit, or receive a fine, or have a collision. You have missed the largest by far: drive over the limit without receiving a fine or colliding. If you drive on the roads, you will know this is true.
-The way the county, country, and services finances are handled is a joke and one of the main reasons that road safety operations are so mis-guided. It needs to change.
Insurgent
says...
12:29pm Tue 7 Jul 09
r conditions and reason for speeding a guff above the 30?
Pyrrho
says...
2:21pm Tue 7 Jul 09
For the record, without wishing to let facts interfere with prejudice, the distance from Holes Bay North roundabout to the traffic lights appears to be aproximately 6,800 feet. At 30m/h (44f/s) that's about 155seconds. At 50m/h 93 secs, and at 70m/h 67 secs. Some people's time must be SO valuable..
Nick2
says...
4:08pm Tue 7 Jul 09
dorsetspeed wrote:DS.
Nick2, We clearly won’t converge to a compromise, but just to answer some of your points: -On the point of “evidence”, my views are simple common sense and supported by the vast majority. If you strongly disagree with any of my factual statements, I’d be interested to hear which. -You seem to think that there are only 3 possible outcomes to driving: Drive within the speed limit, or receive a fine, or have a collision. You have missed the largest by far: drive over the limit without receiving a fine or colliding. If you drive on the roads, you will know this is true. -The way the county, country, and services finances are handled is a joke and one of the main reasons that road safety operations are so mis-guided. It needs to change.
10 years ago I used to think it was true. Not any more!
I used to think that everyone could drive like me. Not any more!
I used to think that nothing would ever happen if I took what I saw as an “acceptable risk. Not any more!
In other words, I used to think just like you do. Not any more!
It was not until I got to see the situation from differing angles, not just as a car driver, that I changed my mind. One day I hope you will get that chance too.
I really think that, although you may drive for years without anything happening, one day you will drive faster than your guardian angel can fly.
Travelling BELOW the speed limit and a deer runs out on you, it is a no- fault collision.
Travelling OVER the speed limit and a deer runs out on you, it becomes an offence.
Which exactly what happened to me. I was under the limit, more by luck than judgment then, but it could have been far worse. Just because a person have been lucky so far, does not mean that they will always be.
--------------------
-
Pyrrho, Upton says...
2:21pm Tue 7 Jul 09
…..”For the record, without wishing to let facts interfere with prejudice, the distance from Holes Bay North roundabout to the traffic lights appears to be aproximately 6,800 feet. At 30m/h (44f/s) that's about 155seconds. At 50m/h 93 secs, and at 70m/h 67 secs. Some people's time must be SO valuable”….
I know I’ve said it all before, and I know that I will not be believed… BUT..
Some basic maths on how fast you are actually travelling..
30 MPH = 50 KPH (1 km = 5/8 mile ). 50 kph / 60 minutes (1 hr.) =833 meters per min, or 13.8 m / sec
60 MPH = 100 KPH. 27.66 meters per second.
70 MPH = 112 KPH. 1860 meters per minute, 31 m/s
80 MPH = 128 KPH. 2133 m/min, or 35.55 m/s
90 MPH = 144 KPH. 2400 m/min, or 40 m/s
100 MPH = 160 KPH 2666 m/min, or 44.43 m/s
The highway code give an average stopping distance at 70 MPH at 96 meters, or 315 feet. Using their calculations the average stopping distance at 100 MPH is 192 meters or 660 feet
Everyone moans that the distance is too long without realising that this is an average time, like you get average driving abilities.
Everyone also forgets about THINKING time. The time between seeing an obstacle and reacting to it. This has everything to do with the drivers ability, not the vehicles’.
Thinking time is the same as speed travelling in feet.
Its fine saying “I can see 8 cars ahead of me”, but what happens if the car ahead is a van? What do you do if the car in front of you has a blow out? Or looses something from a roof rack?
Dear reader, you may be a good driver, but is everyone as good as you?
Pyrrho
says...
4:15pm Tue 7 Jul 09
4:08pm Tue 7 Jul 09
Its fine saying “I can see 8 cars ahead of me”, but what happens if the car ahead is a van? What do you do if the car in front of you has a blow out? Or looses something from a roof rack?
Dear reader, you may be a good driver, but is everyone as good as you?
------------------
Spot on!
dorsetspeed
says...
5:56pm Tue 7 Jul 09
It may or may not be possible to make a case that a speed limit of 30 and the rigid enforcement of it at Holes bay is the right thing to do. But it is clear that the operation here is disproportionate and even if it catches some dangerous drivers, it will obviously catch many who are not driving dangerously and will do nothing to promote general respect for limits, the police, and the law in general.
More Poole stories
- Poole's Quay Thistle Hotel "definitely not being pulled down"
- Poole dad threatened by thieves stealing catalytic converter
- Singer Olly Murs mobbed by fans on day out at Sandbanks
- Condor Ferries moves sailings from Weymouth to Poole amid berth fears
- Anger at Poole school's "suicide lessons"
- Poole campaigners get recreation ground protection backing
- Traders on Ashley Road call for crackdown on litter and dog mess
- Staff protest Bournemouth DVLA office closure
- Bournemouth's Cherries boss backs hospice funding bid
- Poole pupils in Sign2Sing world record bid
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
B.F.G says...
8:13am Wed 1 Jul 09