Call to refund motorists caught on Holes Bay Road camera (From Bournemouth Echo)

Bad Rabbit wrote:
Are you people learning challenged? If you drive at less than the speed-limit - the camera doesn't go off and you don't get a fine. If you go over the limit it goes off and you get a fine. What part of this simple equation have you not got? It's a speed camera, it picks up on speed and you shouldn't be speeding - end of dicsussion.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Bad Rabbit, no one has said they don’t understand that if you go past a camera within the limit you won’t get fined. Try to keep to the point

DSCP’s greed is inexcusable

dorsetspeed wrote:
Adrian XX, take a look at this:
.
http://www.safespeed

.org.uk/hypothecatio

n.html
.
You're surely not naïve enough to think that DSCP staff don’t benefit from this?

dorsetspeed wrote:
Norman Mead, the clue is in the title, second word: Dorset Safety Camera Partnership. We need them to be delivering safety. We need them to be enforcing limits on residential streets, like Grove / Sea View where some father has had to put up his own slow down message because of boy racers nearly hitting his kids.
.
The Holes Bay road can’t even be compared to roads like this, no shops, houses, wide, straight, perfect visibility, safe off road cycle tracks, multiple lanes, ped crossings and barriers, etc, etc, etc. and yet is has the SAME limit!! How can that possibly make any sense?
.
The positioning of this camera on the Holes Bay, by the DSCPs own admission not for safety, when it could have been positioned where it might have delivered safety, can only lead to one conclusion.

Insight wrote:

Bad Rabbit wrote: Are you people learning challenged? If you drive at less than the speed-limit - the camera doesn't go off and you don't get a fine. If you go over the limit it goes off and you get a fine. What part of this simple equation have you not got? It's a speed camera, it picks up on speed and you shouldn't be speeding - end of dicsussion.

....and todays award for the most irrelevant comment goes to.......

Insight wrote:

Bad Rabbit wrote:
Are you people learning challenged? If you drive at less than the speed-limit - the camera doesn't go off and you don't get a fine. If you go over the limit it goes off and you get a fine. What part of this simple equation have you not got? It's a speed camera, it picks up on speed and you shouldn't be speeding - end of dicsussion.

....and todays award for the most irrelevant comment goes to.......

dorsetspeed wrote:
And where the law is wrong, it should be challenged, that's what this is about. Remember, the obsession of the DSCP to raise money is diverting them from what they should be doing, delivery road safety, reducing deaths and serious injuries. Breaking a 30 limit on a perfectly good dual carriageway is an insignificant crime compared to the pain and suffering resulting from the greed of the DSCP

dorsetspeed wrote:
GB916, if you see above, you will see I've already commented that this is a perfect example of the kind of 30 limit where the DSCP SHOULD be, where they can deliver road safety, NOT where they can make money from operations which by their own admission are NOT for safety.
.
If you can explain how driving at 40 at the junction could endanger someone at ASDA, I'd be most interested. Also, ped crossings make it safer for peds, not more dangerous.
.
Finally, I repeat, this operation has NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY according to the DSCP

dorsetspeed wrote:
GB916, if you see above, you will see I've already commented that this is a perfect example of the kind of 30 limit where the DSCP SHOULD be, where they can deliver road safety, NOT where they can make money from operations which by their own admission are NOT for safety.
.
If you can explain how driving at 40 at the junction could endanger someone at ASDA, I'd be most interested. Also, ped crossings make it safer for peds, not more dangerous.
.
Finally, I repeat, this operation has NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY according to the DSCP

imagine wrote:
Speeding is illegal - simple as that! It shouldn't matter where they put speed cameras, because you shouldn't be speeding. If you get caught then it is your own fault.

dorsetspeed wrote:
pd7, you're missing the point completely. Read the thread. . Rally, I'm so pleased you've turned up!! I'm not completely sure what you're asking but the greed on green juction is here: http://maps.google.c o.uk/maps?hl=en&
ie=U TF8&ll=50.720621
,-1. 984328&spn=0.001
168, 0.002722&t=h&amp
;z=19

imagine wrote:
Speeding is illegal - simple as that! It shouldn't matter where they put speed cameras, because you shouldn't be speeding. If you get caught then it is your own fault.

Syd Poumen wrote:

Insight wrote:

Bad Rabbit wrote: Are you people learning challenged? If you drive at less than the speed-limit - the camera doesn't go off and you don't get a fine. If you go over the limit it goes off and you get a fine. What part of this simple equation have you not got? It's a speed camera, it picks up on speed and you shouldn't be speeding - end of dicsussion.

....and todays award for the most irrelevant comment goes to.......

...INSIGHT....or should that be Out of Sight!

Rossi 27 wrote:
I assume that its only irrelevant because it does'nt agree with your one-sided ,tunnel vision biased attitude. What BadRabbit says is the be all and end all of the arguement, you speed, you get caught, you pay the price. Speeding through any camera in a built up area with a SPEED LIMIT only goes to prove that you have been speeding before you reach the camera it's that simple - even for you to understand. You have no justification for your point of view so give it a rest, it matters not a jot if the some cameras are placed and become cash cows, if there is a speed limit that is the end of it.

Rossi 27 wrote:
I assume that its only irrelevant because it does'nt agree with your one-sided ,tunnel vision biased attitude. What BadRabbit says is the be all and end all of the arguement, you speed, you get caught, you pay the price. Speeding through any camera in a built up area with a SPEED LIMIT only goes to prove that you have been speeding before you reach the camera it's that simple - even for you to understand. You have no justification for your point of view so give it a rest, it matters not a jot if the some cameras are placed and become cash cows, if there is a speed limit that is the end of it.

Caleroific wrote:
Sorry previous post should say "...I am not ante speed limits nor ante camera ...

GB916 wrote:
It is strange that some people choose to sweep away the comments about people breaking the speed limit and concentrate purely on the fact the camera might have been placed there in error,well it obviously has not,as it is catching so many speeders,i have driven down this road many times,the speed limit signs are clear,so those that say they are not,well i suggest you are adnger on the road if you cant see them,i do care about road safety,but some seem to think speeding is quite safe,well that really shows that you are a danger to other road users by this staement alone,and yes we do need more police,maybe the camera was placed there to possibly be a cash cow,but it would not be a cash cow if people did not speed though it,on the points about drivers drink/drug driving this is wrong too,so i agree,and speed cameras are always going to be a bone of contention,as people dont like being caught,i doubt it willbe removed,as it is catching to many people.Finally as we live in a democracy we are priviledged to have these sometimes heated discussions,we all agree to disagree

GB916 wrote:
It is strange that some people choose to sweep away the comments about people breaking the speed limit and concentrate purely on the fact the camera might have been placed there in error,well it obviously has not,as it is catching so many speeders,i have driven down this road many times,the speed limit signs are clear,so those that say they are not,well i suggest you are adnger on the road if you cant see them,i do care about road safety,but some seem to think speeding is quite safe,well that really shows that you are a danger to other road users by this staement alone,and yes we do need more police,maybe the camera was placed there to possibly be a cash cow,but it would not be a cash cow if people did not speed though it,on the points about drivers drink/drug driving this is wrong too,so i agree,and speed cameras are always going to be a bone of contention,as people dont like being caught,i doubt it willbe removed,as it is catching to many people.Finally as we live in a democracy we are priviledged to have these sometimes heated discussions,we all agree to disagree

Rally wrote:
Fingerprinting is only useful to the police if a criminal leaves his or her fingerprints at the scene of the crime. As some criminals wear gloves or wipe their fingerprints clean, should the police abolish fingerprinting?

CaughtNapping wrote:
As a visitor I was caught speeding by this camera which destroyed my 30+ years point free record. I've been back and the 30mph signs are completely clear and I can think my subconscious didn't believe that the dual carriageway could be reduced to 30mph at that point and so ignored the signs. Whilst I accept that I was guilty of breaking the law and am sorry for my transgression, I think that the speed reduction at this point in the road is madness in my humble opinion!

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote: Fingerprinting is only useful to the police if a criminal leaves his or her fingerprints at the scene of the crime. As some criminals wear gloves or wipe their fingerprints clean, should the police abolish fingerprinting?

I really can't believe that you posted this Rally. Forensic Science, just like the enforcement of the laws on the road is considerably more than just finger printing, or by comparison, placement of a few speed cameras. … Forensic Science departments encompass many aspects of criminal behaviour, from the breakdown of the chemical constituent of threads of clothing to simpler things such as footprints outside a window, from identifying a weapon by the wounds it left and therefore it's potential owner to matching particles of skin or hair at a crime scene, from analysis of semen to the psychology of a rapist and is therefore essential to police activity all over the world. … For you to compare these is indicative of how obsessed, or perhaps how out of touch with reality some of you people have really become. Would it be ok to sell off Finger Printing to a private enterprise and then cut funding to Forensic Science Departments curtailing their activity, just to rely on Finger Prints?, which as you correctly say, just like surfing speed cameras, can be easily avoided by wearing gloves? Of course it wouldn't and I don’t think I’ve seen a weaker or more ridiculous analogy as this one.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote: Fingerprinting is only useful to the police if a criminal leaves his or her fingerprints at the scene of the crime. As some criminals wear gloves or wipe their fingerprints clean, should the police abolish fingerprinting?

I really can't believe that you posted this Rally. Forensic Science, just like the enforcement of the laws on the road is considerably more than just finger printing, or by comparison, placement of a few speed cameras. … Forensic Science departments encompass many aspects of criminal behaviour, from the breakdown of the chemical constituent of threads of clothing to simpler things such as footprints outside a window, from identifying a weapon by the wounds it left and therefore it's potential owner to matching particles of skin or hair at a crime scene, from analysis of semen to the psychology of a rapist and is therefore essential to police activity all over the world. … For you to compare these is indicative of how obsessed, or perhaps how out of touch with reality some of you people have really become. Would it be ok to sell off Finger Printing to a private enterprise and then cut funding to Forensic Science Departments curtailing their activity, just to rely on Finger Prints?, which as you correctly say, just like surfing speed cameras, can be easily avoided by wearing gloves? Of course it wouldn't and I don’t think I’ve seen a weaker or more ridiculous analogy as this one.

Insight wrote, 'I don’t think I’ve seen a weaker or more ridiculous analogy as this one.' Well, Insight, as the late, great, Francis Urquhart used to say: "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment".

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote: Fingerprinting is only useful to the police if a criminal leaves his or her fingerprints at the scene of the crime. As some criminals wear gloves or wipe their fingerprints clean, should the police abolish fingerprinting?

I really can't believe that you posted this Rally. Forensic Science, just like the enforcement of the laws on the road is considerably more than just finger printing, or by comparison, placement of a few speed cameras. … Forensic Science departments encompass many aspects of criminal behaviour, from the breakdown of the chemical constituent of threads of clothing to simpler things such as footprints outside a window, from identifying a weapon by the wounds it left and therefore it's potential owner to matching particles of skin or hair at a crime scene, from analysis of semen to the psychology of a rapist and is therefore essential to police activity all over the world. … For you to compare these is indicative of how obsessed, or perhaps how out of touch with reality some of you people have really become. Would it be ok to sell off Finger Printing to a private enterprise and then cut funding to Forensic Science Departments curtailing their activity, just to rely on Finger Prints?, which as you correctly say, just like surfing speed cameras, can be easily avoided by wearing gloves? Of course it wouldn't and I don’t think I’ve seen a weaker or more ridiculous analogy as this one.

Insight wrote, 'I don’t think I’ve seen a weaker or more ridiculous analogy as this one.' Well, Insight, as the late, great, Francis Urquhart used to say: "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment".

Bless you Rally, you do make me chuckle ...when all else fails, quote fiction eh? :)

Insight wrote:
Here's one little example of why I think you people are so ridculous.
I have a normal family saloon, if I were to pull up stationary along side a speed camera on a thirty mile speed limit, then accelerate hard, in less than ten seconds I could be doing twice the speed limit and the camera would do? ...yes, nothing!.
Further, if I were the kind to indulge in such vices, if I performed the same experiment having just downed half a bottle of the famous grouse with a joint in mouth and a machette in the footwell, your pathetic cameras would still be none the wiser.
Meanwhile, 20% of our traffic police have disappeared to rely on these stupid cameras.
The more you argue, the more absurd you appear!

dorsetspeed wrote:
Oh, please, Rally. All that DorsetSpeed is doing is passing on information I have been asked for

Insight wrote:

Rossi 27 wrote: I assume that its only irrelevant because it does'nt agree with your one-sided ,tunnel vision biased attitude. What BadRabbit says is the be all and end all of the arguement, you speed, you get caught, you pay the price. Speeding through any camera in a built up area with a SPEED LIMIT only goes to prove that you have been speeding before you reach the camera it's that simple - even for you to understand. You have no justification for your point of view so give it a rest, it matters not a jot if the some cameras are placed and become cash cows, if there is a speed limit that is the end of it.

Actually, by your own admission I have every right to my opinion. You said "Speeding through any camera in a built up area with a SPEED LIMIT only goes to prove that they have been speeding before they reach the camera it's that simple." Well I live in one of these areas that 'doesn't' have a speed camera, therefore as lots of people are speeding (it's as simple as that) then I have every right to complain about the inadequacy of the program. As for a "one-sided ,tunnel vision biased attitude", I'd say this was also a case of the pot calling the kettle black. However, assuming that you are a member of the partnership with such a polarised blinkered opinion, perhaps your biased attitude is amplified now that you're facing redundancy?

Was Charlie wrote:
The whole point that Dorsetspeed is trying to make and that you are all ignoring is: ....... If they were ONLY interested in safety, they would put average speed cameras on the road. It would also be sensible to put in a 40 mph section before the 30 mph one. But that would mean there would be fewer speeders and fewer fines, therefore less income. ....... Clearly they are not interested ONLY in safety, but in making as much money as possible from a fixed camera that they hope speeders won't see until it's too late, having to slow down suddenly from from the legal 50 mph to 30 mph. ....... There will always be people who speed and they are breaking the law, but they don't want motorists to slow down because there are better ways to achieve this than a fixed camera - they want the money from fines.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rossi27, So you don't care at all about road safety then?

Rally wrote:
Insight, a couple of serious questions for you: should we have enforced speed limits on our roads, and, if so, why?

dorsetspeed wrote:
I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes. Yes, I've invited Insight to contact me but he hasn't and he's doing an excellent job anyway. Rossi, perhaps you need to start asking the DSCP some questions

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes. Yes, I've invited Insight to contact me but he hasn't and he's doing an excellent job anyway. Rossi, perhaps you need to start asking the DSCP some questions

dorsetspeed wrote: 'I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes' You haven't actually won anything, dorsetspeed. This shutting down of speed cameras is a direct result of the recent changes in our government and the massive cuts in finance now being brought in more or less across the board. Your jumping up and down and squeaking about cash-cow speed cameras, etc., had no effect what-so-ever on this sudden change in the use of the cameras. The result (so far) may be what you wanted, but it certainly isn't for the reasons you wanted - so please don't go around crowing about winning a battle when you weren't even on the battlefield.

Insight wrote:
If the councillors then decide to leave the camera on site, then it should be set at the old limit. But as there is no casualty reduction criteria to even erect a camera at this location as per DfT guidelines in the first place, let alone an artificial reduction in speed limit, then the councillors themselves should provide adequate justification for their decision. Is that really too much to ask?

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote: Insight, a couple of serious questions for you: should we have enforced speed limits on our roads, and, if so, why?

Of course we should Rally and you know why we should, do I really have to repeat it?. From my perspective, speed limits and generally enforcing them were never in question, no matter how many different ways you try to make it look otherwise. I'll happily criticise abuse of those who abuse these laws when it comes to artificial reductions in speed limits where, as the partnership themselves say, there is no casualty reduction criteria, but I have no problem with the law itself. Of course, had you actually bothered reading my posts and that I was complaining about there being no enforcement on the roads where I live, especially now the partnerships have taken over, then perhaps you might actually begin to get the picture, however, I won't be holding my breath.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: If the councillors then decide to leave the camera on site, then it should be set at the old limit. But as there is no casualty reduction criteria to even erect a camera at this location as per DfT guidelines in the first place, let alone an artificial reduction in speed limit, then the councillors themselves should provide adequate justification for their decision. Is that really too much to ask?

I'm told that the majority of motorists who travel through this junction do so at or below the posted speed limit. If correct, then why should the speed limit be increased to suit a minority of motorists?

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote: Insight, a couple of serious questions for you: should we have enforced speed limits on our roads, and, if so, why?

Of course we should Rally and you know why we should, do I really have to repeat it?. From my perspective, speed limits and generally enforcing them were never in question, no matter how many different ways you try to make it look otherwise. I'll happily criticise abuse of those who abuse these laws when it comes to artificial reductions in speed limits where, as the partnership themselves say, there is no casualty reduction criteria, but I have no problem with the law itself. Of course, had you actually bothered reading my posts and that I was complaining about there being no enforcement on the roads where I live, especially now the partnerships have taken over, then perhaps you might actually begin to get the picture, however, I won't be holding my breath.

Insight, I believe I know why we should have speed limits. What I don't know (or perhaps knew but have forgotten) is why you think we should have them. Insight wrote, 'Of course, had you actually bothered reading my posts and that I was complaining about there being no enforcement on the roads where I live, ...' Oh dear. I did read these posts, Insight, and they caused me to ask you a number of questions about the road and surrounding area you live in. So far you have either deigned not to answer them or dismissed them as irrelevant - which is not particulary helpful.

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes. Yes, I've invited Insight to contact me but he hasn't and he's doing an excellent job anyway. Rossi, perhaps you need to start asking the DSCP some questions

dorsetspeed wrote: 'I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes' You haven't actually won anything, dorsetspeed. This shutting down of speed cameras is a direct result of the recent changes in our government and the massive cuts in finance now being brought in more or less across the board. Your jumping up and down and squeaking about cash-cow speed cameras, etc., had no effect what-so-ever on this sudden change in the use of the cameras. The result (so far) may be what you wanted, but it certainly isn't for the reasons you wanted - so please don't go around crowing about winning a battle when you weren't even on the battlefield.

I have to say that for once I see Rally's point. The cameras are going due to a reduction in funding, which is a result of a collapse in fine revenue across the country (down from £106 Million in 2007, to just £87 million in 2009, inspite of an increase in cameras and therefore ever growing cost to maintain the partnerships who run them) Much of Dorsetspeeds point of view is correct, but that isn't the reason they're going. They're going because they're a failure.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes. Yes, I've invited Insight to contact me but he hasn't and he's doing an excellent job anyway. Rossi, perhaps you need to start asking the DSCP some questions

dorsetspeed wrote: 'I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes' You haven't actually won anything, dorsetspeed. This shutting down of speed cameras is a direct result of the recent changes in our government and the massive cuts in finance now being brought in more or less across the board. Your jumping up and down and squeaking about cash-cow speed cameras, etc., had no effect what-so-ever on this sudden change in the use of the cameras. The result (so far) may be what you wanted, but it certainly isn't for the reasons you wanted - so please don't go around crowing about winning a battle when you weren't even on the battlefield.

I have to say that for once I see Rally's point. The cameras are going due to a reduction in funding, which is a result of a collapse in fine revenue across the country (down from £106 Million in 2007, to just £87 million in 2009, inspite of an increase in cameras and therefore ever growing cost to maintain the partnerships who run them) Much of Dorsetspeeds point of view is correct, but that isn't the reason they're going. They're going because they're a failure.

Insight wrote, 'They're going because they're a failure... As a matter of interest, Insight, does this 'failure' extend to those cameras that are in genuine so-called 'black spot' areas and have proven effective in reducing the numbers of road accidents? If so, then are we to have two police officers parked 24/7 where these cameras used to be sited? Would this arrangement cost more or less than a speed camera? Would this arrangement be more or less efficient than than speed camera? Oh dear, so many questions and so few answers...

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes. Yes, I've invited Insight to contact me but he hasn't and he's doing an excellent job anyway. Rossi, perhaps you need to start asking the DSCP some questions

dorsetspeed wrote: 'I'm quite comfortable my battle is won, speed cameras will go in Wiltshire now, they're starting to fall like dominoes' You haven't actually won anything, dorsetspeed. This shutting down of speed cameras is a direct result of the recent changes in our government and the massive cuts in finance now being brought in more or less across the board. Your jumping up and down and squeaking about cash-cow speed cameras, etc., had no effect what-so-ever on this sudden change in the use of the cameras. The result (so far) may be what you wanted, but it certainly isn't for the reasons you wanted - so please don't go around crowing about winning a battle when you weren't even on the battlefield.

I have to say that for once I see Rally's point. The cameras are going due to a reduction in funding, which is a result of a collapse in fine revenue across the country (down from £106 Million in 2007, to just £87 million in 2009, inspite of an increase in cameras and therefore ever growing cost to maintain the partnerships who run them) Much of Dorsetspeeds point of view is correct, but that isn't the reason they're going. They're going because they're a failure.

Insight wrote, 'They're going because they're a failure... As a matter of interest, Insight, does this 'failure' extend to those cameras that are in genuine so-called 'black spot' areas and have proven effective in reducing the numbers of road accidents? If so, then are we to have two police officers parked 24/7 where these cameras used to be sited? Would this arrangement cost more or less than a speed camera? Would this arrangement be more or less efficient than than speed camera? Oh dear, so many questions and so few answers...

Please explain why we would need two police officeres parked 24/7 where these cameras used to be sited?, didn't we discuss the superior longevity of the halo effect of real police enforcement and the benefits to the community as a whole that a return to real policing would bring forward when compared to the woefully inadequate, one trick, easily avoided speed cameras?, or have you forgotten already? Do we need to have that conversation again as we go round and round the same ground over and over again as the camera supporters clutch at an ever dimishing set of straw? ... As for cameras sited in so called genuine accident black spots, which leads us to the one claim that the partnerships do make, in that collisions reduce at these sites. It is now known that the claims of the partnerships of their success at camera sites has been apparently 'unwittingly' exaggerated by the 'DfT' over at least the last four years and the now infamous claim of a 42% reduction across the country has been removed from the Think! website. Therefore, the claims of the success of cameras at these sites in comparison to known effects such as resurfacing of worn out roads and a general refurbishment of the infrastructure are now little more than speculation.

Insight wrote:
I can only assume therefore, that 'my' community concerns, aren't as imperitive as the community concerns on the Holes Bay road. Perhaps this is because I don't have a similarly high volume of traffic to generate the revenue to make it worth erecting a camera? and the speed limit is already 30 mph, so an artificial reduction won't help? There was talk of a 20 mph being imposed, but that turned to nothing, but regardless of this, without enforcement a 20 mph limit is nothing more than a placebo and will be just as ignored as the 30 is now. Do you get it yet?

Insight wrote:
So, afterall the partnerships have been closed, what's going to be the next soapbox for the camera supporters?, Who knows, you might find me on your side in the next one!

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: So, afterall the partnerships have been closed, what's going to be the next soapbox for the camera supporters?, Who knows, you might find me on your side in the next one!

Hmm, you get on any soapbox of mine and I'll push you off it - gently, of course. Anyway, I'm away now to watch a Steven Segal movie - this spell of responding to your malarky posts has left me in urgent need of some intellectual stimulation.

Norman Mead wrote:

Insight wrote:
Here's one little example of why I think you people are so ridculous.
I have a normal family saloon, if I were to pull up stationary along side a speed camera on a thirty mile speed limit, then accelerate hard, in less than ten seconds I could be doing twice the speed limit and the camera would do? ...yes, nothing!.
Further, if I were the kind to indulge in such vices, if I performed the same experiment having just downed half a bottle of the famous grouse with a joint in mouth and a machette in the footwell, your pathetic cameras would still be none the wiser.
Meanwhile, 20% of our traffic police have disappeared to rely on these stupid cameras.
The more you argue, the more absurd you appear!

So have you actually performed this experiment? If not, on what basis do you believe that the camera wouldn't flash? URL link, please.

20% of Dorset traffic police have disappeared? URL link to the official figures, please.

Insight wrote:
Theresa Villiers, then shadow transport secretary, unearthed the 1,577 20% drop in officer numbers from 7,806 in 1998/9 in a written Parliamentary question, around the same time as Swindon switched off their cameras. Google it, there's plenty of press coverage.
...
With all due respect Norman, if an ordinary family car were stationary besides a speed camera, then accelerated, the vehicle would be well over an eighth of a mile, getting on for a quater of a mile away before the vehicle broke the 30 + 10% + 2 non obligatory threshold of the urban GATSO, well beyond it's physical range and out of sight of the camera as it travelled on to over twice the speed limit on that road.
In fact, I doubt even a ferrari could trip a camera from a standing start.
I'm happy for you to dispute this, but I'm afraid it's nothing more than simple physics and as Scotty might have said "Even the speed cameras cannae change the laws of physics cap'n" (sorry, I was having a rally moment there).

Norman Mead wrote:

Insight wrote: Theresa Villiers, then shadow transport secretary, unearthed the 1,577 20% drop in officer numbers from 7,806 in 1998/9 in a written Parliamentary question, around the same time as Swindon switched off their cameras. Google it, there's plenty of press coverage. ... With all due respect Norman, if an ordinary family car were stationary besides a speed camera, then accelerated, the vehicle would be well over an eighth of a mile, getting on for a quater of a mile away before the vehicle broke the 30 + 10% + 2 non obligatory threshold of the urban GATSO, well beyond it's physical range and out of sight of the camera as it travelled on to over twice the speed limit on that road. In fact, I doubt even a ferrari could trip a camera from a standing start. I'm happy for you to dispute this, but I'm afraid it's nothing more than simple physics and as Scotty might have said "Even the speed cameras cannae change the laws of physics cap'n" (sorry, I was having a rally moment there).

Fair enough. I should have realised! You could have simply said that speed cameras don't catch speeding drivers out of their range, though. What about the 20% reduction in traffic officers? Is that locally or nationally? Where did you get your figures? You see, a lot of people claim this is a myth. I'd like to know one way or the other.

Insight wrote:
Infact Norman, because I can't be bothered if this comes up again here's a complete article from one news paper at the time, in this instance the Telegraph. ... Police numbers fall as cameras kicked out ... The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer". ... The warning from the AA comes as a Tory council became the first to ban the cameras from local streets. ... Drivers in Swindon, Wiltshire, will no longer be issued with penalties by speed cameras after the local council dubbed them a "tax on motorists." ... The move came as new figures show that the number of traffic police on patrol in England and Wales has declined by nearly 20 per cent over the last decade. ... Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, who unearthed the 1,577 drop in officer numbers from 7,806 in 1998/9 in a written Parliamentary question, welcomed Swindon's decision - and called on the Government to halt the decline in traffic police. ... She said: ``These figures confirm fears that Labour's road safety is too heavily dependent on fixed speed cameras. They are too much of a one club golfer.''There are a range of serious problems that cameras can't deal with, but traffic police can - from using a mobile phone while at the wheel to drink driving and driving without insurance. ... "Traffic police can also play an important role in the fight against crimes like burglary and terrorism. ... "It is clear that there are important road safety concerns that cameras can not solve, so we await with interest the results of the new approach in Swindon to see if lessons can be learned about the most effective way to make our roads safer.'' ... Edmund King, president of the AA, also warned the Government not to allow further falls in officer numbers, saying that researched showed a strong link between driving offences and more serious crime. He added: "A speed camera does not pick up the illegal foreign truck driver or boy racer with stolen plates, but a traffic cop can". ... "We need to reverse this trend and increase traffic cops not only to make our roads safer but to make society safer. ... "We should never forget that it was a police officer on traffic duty who caught the Yorkshire Ripper.'' ... Swindon took action against after councillors became frustrated that local residents were having to pay for the upkeep of cameras through their council tax, while central government retained the money from fines. ... Eight will now be withdrawn from local streets once the council's current contract comes to an end. ... Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, the Conservative member for highways, transport and strategic planning, said there was more to the decision than penny pinching. ... He told cabinet members that the nation's approach to road safety needed an urgent overhaul and he urged other councils to follow in their footsteps. ... Cllr Greenhalgh said: "People being killed on our roads is possibly one of the most important factors which affect people in this country. ... "What speed cameras are not doing is reducing the number of people being killed. ... "In fact, the number of people dying on Swindon's roads is actually on the increase. ... "It's true that speed cameras catch people who are speeding and in this sense, I cannot deny they work. ... "But they are not stopping people dying on our roads. Government statistics show that only six per cent of deaths are caused by speeding." ... A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said that it would be "monitoring the results" to see if any fatalities occurred on Swindon roads where cameras once stood. ... Jane Whitham, spokesman for the road safety charity Brake, added: "Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision. ... "In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people's lives." **** A year later and no carnage or blood bath on the streets of Swindon as predicted by all the camera supporters, in fact no change in accident stats at all. No surprises there.

outlawselfinterest wrote:
I've siad it before and I'll no doubt say it again as the petrol-heads don't listen.
.
KEEP TO THE LEGAL SPEED LIMIT
.
Don't get caught exceeding it.
.
Don't pay any fines.
.
Leave that to the dangerous fools who think they are above the law.
.
Oh and let me know your home address so I can break in to steal things and ignore that law. And then whinge to the press when I'm caught.

dorsetspeed wrote:

outlawselfinterest wrote: I've siad it before and I'll no doubt say it again as the petrol-heads don't listen. . KEEP TO THE LEGAL SPEED LIMIT . Don't get caught exceeding it. . Don't pay any fines. . Leave that to the dangerous fools who think they are above the law. . Oh and let me know your home address so I can break in to steal things and ignore that law. And then whinge to the press when I'm caught.

It's been pointed out many times: this camera is NOT about safety, acording to the DORSET $A£ETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP. Therefore, this camera is catching people who are safe. Safe drivers do not cause anyone, any harm whatsoever.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Having said that, just because most people drive at 30 past the camera so they don't get a fine, does not mean they think the limit is not b****y stupid

dorsetspeed wrote:

outlawselfinterest wrote: I've siad it before and I'll no doubt say it again as the petrol-heads don't listen. . KEEP TO THE LEGAL SPEED LIMIT . Don't get caught exceeding it. . Don't pay any fines. . Leave that to the dangerous fools who think they are above the law. . Oh and let me know your home address so I can break in to steal things and ignore that law. And then whinge to the press when I'm caught.

It's been pointed out many times: this camera is NOT about safety, acording to the DORSET $A£ETY CAMERA PARTNERSHIP. Therefore, this camera is catching people who are safe. Safe drivers do not cause anyone, any harm whatsoever.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Here's the greed on green junction: ... http://maps.google.c o.uk/maps?hl=en&
ie=U TF8&ll=50.720621
,-1. 984328&spn=0.001
168, 0.002722&t=h&amp
;z=19 ... Here's a typical residential / commercial area 30 limit area: ... http://maps.google.c o.uk/maps?hl=en&
ie=U TF8&ll=50.728763
,-1. 940672&spn=0.001
18,0 .001781&t=h&
z=19 ... Both have 30 limits. Is it sinking in yet?

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: Infact Norman, because I can't be bothered if this comes up again here's a complete article from one news paper at the time, in this instance the Telegraph. ... Police numbers fall as cameras kicked out ... The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer". ... The warning from the AA comes as a Tory council became the first to ban the cameras from local streets. ... Drivers in Swindon, Wiltshire, will no longer be issued with penalties by speed cameras after the local council dubbed them a "tax on motorists." ... The move came as new figures show that the number of traffic police on patrol in England and Wales has declined by nearly 20 per cent over the last decade. ... Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, who unearthed the 1,577 drop in officer numbers from 7,806 in 1998/9 in a written Parliamentary question, welcomed Swindon's decision - and called on the Government to halt the decline in traffic police. ... She said: ``These figures confirm fears that Labour's road safety is too heavily dependent on fixed speed cameras. They are too much of a one club golfer.''There are a range of serious problems that cameras can't deal with, but traffic police can - from using a mobile phone while at the wheel to drink driving and driving without insurance. ... "Traffic police can also play an important role in the fight against crimes like burglary and terrorism. ... "It is clear that there are important road safety concerns that cameras can not solve, so we await with interest the results of the new approach in Swindon to see if lessons can be learned about the most effective way to make our roads safer.'' ... Edmund King, president of the AA, also warned the Government not to allow further falls in officer numbers, saying that researched showed a strong link between driving offences and more serious crime. He added: "A speed camera does not pick up the illegal foreign truck driver or boy racer with stolen plates, but a traffic cop can". ... "We need to reverse this trend and increase traffic cops not only to make our roads safer but to make society safer. ... "We should never forget that it was a police officer on traffic duty who caught the Yorkshire Ripper.'' ... Swindon took action against after councillors became frustrated that local residents were having to pay for the upkeep of cameras through their council tax, while central government retained the money from fines. ... Eight will now be withdrawn from local streets once the council's current contract comes to an end. ... Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, the Conservative member for highways, transport and strategic planning, said there was more to the decision than penny pinching. ... He told cabinet members that the nation's approach to road safety needed an urgent overhaul and he urged other councils to follow in their footsteps. ... Cllr Greenhalgh said: "People being killed on our roads is possibly one of the most important factors which affect people in this country. ... "What speed cameras are not doing is reducing the number of people being killed. ... "In fact, the number of people dying on Swindon's roads is actually on the increase. ... "It's true that speed cameras catch people who are speeding and in this sense, I cannot deny they work. ... "But they are not stopping people dying on our roads. Government statistics show that only six per cent of deaths are caused by speeding." ... A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said that it would be "monitoring the results" to see if any fatalities occurred on Swindon roads where cameras once stood. ... Jane Whitham, spokesman for the road safety charity Brake, added: "Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision. ... "In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people's lives." **** A year later and no carnage or blood bath on the streets of Swindon as predicted by all the camera supporters, in fact no change in accident stats at all. No surprises there.

Insight quoted, 'The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer".' This is a key issue and one well worth remembering. You see, not one person here who is in favour of speed cameras has advocated that the cameras should replace traffic police. Yet if some (many?) of the anti speed cameras posters here are to be believed, those of us who want to keep (and in some cases increase) these cameras are guilty of wanting them at the expense of more traffic police. It's time the anti speed camera brigade made a point of putting an end to this false and totally misleading assertion by some of its members.

dorsetspeed wrote:
...and here's the 50 limit junction near PC World, large number of popular stores on both side of the main road and no crossing, fewer barriers, busier, no enforcement, more distraction, etc.: ... http://maps.google.c o.uk/maps?hl=en&
ie=U TF8&t=h&ll=5
0.735089 ,-1.990883&spn=0
.001 18,0.001781&z=19 ... Speed limits set for road safety? My a*s!!

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: Infact Norman, because I can't be bothered if this comes up again here's a complete article from one news paper at the time, in this instance the Telegraph. ... Police numbers fall as cameras kicked out ... The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer". ... The warning from the AA comes as a Tory council became the first to ban the cameras from local streets. ... Drivers in Swindon, Wiltshire, will no longer be issued with penalties by speed cameras after the local council dubbed them a "tax on motorists." ... The move came as new figures show that the number of traffic police on patrol in England and Wales has declined by nearly 20 per cent over the last decade. ... Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, who unearthed the 1,577 drop in officer numbers from 7,806 in 1998/9 in a written Parliamentary question, welcomed Swindon's decision - and called on the Government to halt the decline in traffic police. ... She said: ``These figures confirm fears that Labour's road safety is too heavily dependent on fixed speed cameras. They are too much of a one club golfer.''There are a range of serious problems that cameras can't deal with, but traffic police can - from using a mobile phone while at the wheel to drink driving and driving without insurance. ... "Traffic police can also play an important role in the fight against crimes like burglary and terrorism. ... "It is clear that there are important road safety concerns that cameras can not solve, so we await with interest the results of the new approach in Swindon to see if lessons can be learned about the most effective way to make our roads safer.'' ... Edmund King, president of the AA, also warned the Government not to allow further falls in officer numbers, saying that researched showed a strong link between driving offences and more serious crime. He added: "A speed camera does not pick up the illegal foreign truck driver or boy racer with stolen plates, but a traffic cop can". ... "We need to reverse this trend and increase traffic cops not only to make our roads safer but to make society safer. ... "We should never forget that it was a police officer on traffic duty who caught the Yorkshire Ripper.'' ... Swindon took action against after councillors became frustrated that local residents were having to pay for the upkeep of cameras through their council tax, while central government retained the money from fines. ... Eight will now be withdrawn from local streets once the council's current contract comes to an end. ... Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, the Conservative member for highways, transport and strategic planning, said there was more to the decision than penny pinching. ... He told cabinet members that the nation's approach to road safety needed an urgent overhaul and he urged other councils to follow in their footsteps. ... Cllr Greenhalgh said: "People being killed on our roads is possibly one of the most important factors which affect people in this country. ... "What speed cameras are not doing is reducing the number of people being killed. ... "In fact, the number of people dying on Swindon's roads is actually on the increase. ... "It's true that speed cameras catch people who are speeding and in this sense, I cannot deny they work. ... "But they are not stopping people dying on our roads. Government statistics show that only six per cent of deaths are caused by speeding." ... A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said that it would be "monitoring the results" to see if any fatalities occurred on Swindon roads where cameras once stood. ... Jane Whitham, spokesman for the road safety charity Brake, added: "Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision. ... "In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people's lives." **** A year later and no carnage or blood bath on the streets of Swindon as predicted by all the camera supporters, in fact no change in accident stats at all. No surprises there.

Insight quoted, 'The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer".' This is a key issue and one well worth remembering. You see, not one person here who is in favour of speed cameras has advocated that the cameras should replace traffic police. Yet if some (many?) of the anti speed cameras posters here are to be believed, those of us who want to keep (and in some cases increase) these cameras are guilty of wanting them at the expense of more traffic police. It's time the anti speed camera brigade made a point of putting an end to this false and totally misleading assertion by some of its members.

Yes Rally, I understand that you don't advocate replacing 'real' police with cameras. However it isn't a false and totally misleading assertion, it's an inconvenient truth resulting from bad policy, because it's exactly what has happened regardless of you pointing your fingers in your ears and saying ner ner can't hear you. Everyone also understands that you'd love to have a bottomless pot of money so that we can have lots more cameras and lots more non productive civilians supporting them 'and' lots more police as well. Saddly, this is the real world, post Brown economic meltdown, where that pot doesn't exist and choices have to be made.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: Infact Norman, because I can't be bothered if this comes up again here's a complete article from one news paper at the time, in this instance the Telegraph. ... Police numbers fall as cameras kicked out ... The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer". ... The warning from the AA comes as a Tory council became the first to ban the cameras from local streets. ... Drivers in Swindon, Wiltshire, will no longer be issued with penalties by speed cameras after the local council dubbed them a "tax on motorists." ... The move came as new figures show that the number of traffic police on patrol in England and Wales has declined by nearly 20 per cent over the last decade. ... Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, who unearthed the 1,577 drop in officer numbers from 7,806 in 1998/9 in a written Parliamentary question, welcomed Swindon's decision - and called on the Government to halt the decline in traffic police. ... She said: ``These figures confirm fears that Labour's road safety is too heavily dependent on fixed speed cameras. They are too much of a one club golfer.''There are a range of serious problems that cameras can't deal with, but traffic police can - from using a mobile phone while at the wheel to drink driving and driving without insurance. ... "Traffic police can also play an important role in the fight against crimes like burglary and terrorism. ... "It is clear that there are important road safety concerns that cameras can not solve, so we await with interest the results of the new approach in Swindon to see if lessons can be learned about the most effective way to make our roads safer.'' ... Edmund King, president of the AA, also warned the Government not to allow further falls in officer numbers, saying that researched showed a strong link between driving offences and more serious crime. He added: "A speed camera does not pick up the illegal foreign truck driver or boy racer with stolen plates, but a traffic cop can". ... "We need to reverse this trend and increase traffic cops not only to make our roads safer but to make society safer. ... "We should never forget that it was a police officer on traffic duty who caught the Yorkshire Ripper.'' ... Swindon took action against after councillors became frustrated that local residents were having to pay for the upkeep of cameras through their council tax, while central government retained the money from fines. ... Eight will now be withdrawn from local streets once the council's current contract comes to an end. ... Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, the Conservative member for highways, transport and strategic planning, said there was more to the decision than penny pinching. ... He told cabinet members that the nation's approach to road safety needed an urgent overhaul and he urged other councils to follow in their footsteps. ... Cllr Greenhalgh said: "People being killed on our roads is possibly one of the most important factors which affect people in this country. ... "What speed cameras are not doing is reducing the number of people being killed. ... "In fact, the number of people dying on Swindon's roads is actually on the increase. ... "It's true that speed cameras catch people who are speeding and in this sense, I cannot deny they work. ... "But they are not stopping people dying on our roads. Government statistics show that only six per cent of deaths are caused by speeding." ... A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said that it would be "monitoring the results" to see if any fatalities occurred on Swindon roads where cameras once stood. ... Jane Whitham, spokesman for the road safety charity Brake, added: "Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision. ... "In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people's lives." **** A year later and no carnage or blood bath on the streets of Swindon as predicted by all the camera supporters, in fact no change in accident stats at all. No surprises there.

Insight quoted, 'The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer".' This is a key issue and one well worth remembering. You see, not one person here who is in favour of speed cameras has advocated that the cameras should replace traffic police. Yet if some (many?) of the anti speed cameras posters here are to be believed, those of us who want to keep (and in some cases increase) these cameras are guilty of wanting them at the expense of more traffic police. It's time the anti speed camera brigade made a point of putting an end to this false and totally misleading assertion by some of its members.

Yes Rally, I understand that you don't advocate replacing 'real' police with cameras. However it isn't a false and totally misleading assertion, it's an inconvenient truth resulting from bad policy, because it's exactly what has happened regardless of you pointing your fingers in your ears and saying ner ner can't hear you. Everyone also understands that you'd love to have a bottomless pot of money so that we can have lots more cameras and lots more non productive civilians supporting them 'and' lots more police as well. Saddly, this is the real world, post Brown economic meltdown, where that pot doesn't exist and choices have to be made.

Insight, I do wish you would stop reading into my posts things that are not there. It's becoming awfully tiresome of you.

HolidayMaker wrote:
Rally, it's okay to say fines will drop as awareness increases of the speed on green camera in Poole, but the signs should cater for ALL motorists, not just be a token effort to warn people and let word of mouth do the rest. As a major holiday destination the camera is claiming alot of victims, yes victims, because of the poor set up approaching the camera site. As someone who takes great pride in NOT being caught by speed cameras and NOT having points on my license I feel a strong sense of injustice about being penalised by the camera site. It's entrapment. The police can't rely on local knowledge doing the trick , they have to make the signs better, start the 30mph zone earlier, have bigger and more frequent signs. I didn't want a speeding ticket, I wasn't in a rush, I was on holiday and it was the end of a beautifully realxing sunny day out in the Dorset countryside. How I missed the 30mph sign I'll never know but I did and loads of other people obviously are as well, so they need to do something about it or lots of people will continue to get 'caught' rather than slowed down.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rossi, "Dorsetspeed ,What part of 30MPH speed limit don't you understand, it is clearly signposted with plenty of notice you are approaching 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, entrance to supermarket and a roundabout, how can exceeding the speed limit here be SAFE, surely even you can work that one out." ... Rossi, what part of the DSCP's statement "it's not about casualty reduction" do you not understand?

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, "In general terms, the difference is that on Holes Bay Road there is plenty of scope to drive at 70mph plus (albeit illegal and dangerous), whereas in Ashley Road, Parkstone there's hardly any scope for getting above 25mph." . And you have even tried to suggest that the pictures I have provided do not suggest inconsistent speed limits!!! . Now I know for sure, you talk nothing but C**P! . Thanks

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: Infact Norman, because I can't be bothered if this comes up again here's a complete article from one news paper at the time, in this instance the Telegraph. ... Police numbers fall as cameras kicked out ... The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer". ... The warning from the AA comes as a Tory council became the first to ban the cameras from local streets. ... Drivers in Swindon, Wiltshire, will no longer be issued with penalties by speed cameras after the local council dubbed them a "tax on motorists." ... The move came as new figures show that the number of traffic police on patrol in England and Wales has declined by nearly 20 per cent over the last decade. ... Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, who unearthed the 1,577 drop in officer numbers from 7,806 in 1998/9 in a written Parliamentary question, welcomed Swindon's decision - and called on the Government to halt the decline in traffic police. ... She said: ``These figures confirm fears that Labour's road safety is too heavily dependent on fixed speed cameras. They are too much of a one club golfer.''There are a range of serious problems that cameras can't deal with, but traffic police can - from using a mobile phone while at the wheel to drink driving and driving without insurance. ... "Traffic police can also play an important role in the fight against crimes like burglary and terrorism. ... "It is clear that there are important road safety concerns that cameras can not solve, so we await with interest the results of the new approach in Swindon to see if lessons can be learned about the most effective way to make our roads safer.'' ... Edmund King, president of the AA, also warned the Government not to allow further falls in officer numbers, saying that researched showed a strong link between driving offences and more serious crime. He added: "A speed camera does not pick up the illegal foreign truck driver or boy racer with stolen plates, but a traffic cop can". ... "We need to reverse this trend and increase traffic cops not only to make our roads safer but to make society safer. ... "We should never forget that it was a police officer on traffic duty who caught the Yorkshire Ripper.'' ... Swindon took action against after councillors became frustrated that local residents were having to pay for the upkeep of cameras through their council tax, while central government retained the money from fines. ... Eight will now be withdrawn from local streets once the council's current contract comes to an end. ... Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, the Conservative member for highways, transport and strategic planning, said there was more to the decision than penny pinching. ... He told cabinet members that the nation's approach to road safety needed an urgent overhaul and he urged other councils to follow in their footsteps. ... Cllr Greenhalgh said: "People being killed on our roads is possibly one of the most important factors which affect people in this country. ... "What speed cameras are not doing is reducing the number of people being killed. ... "In fact, the number of people dying on Swindon's roads is actually on the increase. ... "It's true that speed cameras catch people who are speeding and in this sense, I cannot deny they work. ... "But they are not stopping people dying on our roads. Government statistics show that only six per cent of deaths are caused by speeding." ... A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said that it would be "monitoring the results" to see if any fatalities occurred on Swindon roads where cameras once stood. ... Jane Whitham, spokesman for the road safety charity Brake, added: "Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision. ... "In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people's lives." **** A year later and no carnage or blood bath on the streets of Swindon as predicted by all the camera supporters, in fact no change in accident stats at all. No surprises there.

Insight quoted, 'The growing use of speed cameras to replace traffic police should be reversed, the AA said, in a call to "make our roads safer".' This is a key issue and one well worth remembering. You see, not one person here who is in favour of speed cameras has advocated that the cameras should replace traffic police. Yet if some (many?) of the anti speed cameras posters here are to be believed, those of us who want to keep (and in some cases increase) these cameras are guilty of wanting them at the expense of more traffic police. It's time the anti speed camera brigade made a point of putting an end to this false and totally misleading assertion by some of its members.

Yes Rally, I understand that you don't advocate replacing 'real' police with cameras. However it isn't a false and totally misleading assertion, it's an inconvenient truth resulting from bad policy, because it's exactly what has happened regardless of you pointing your fingers in your ears and saying ner ner can't hear you. Everyone also understands that you'd love to have a bottomless pot of money so that we can have lots more cameras and lots more non productive civilians supporting them 'and' lots more police as well. Saddly, this is the real world, post Brown economic meltdown, where that pot doesn't exist and choices have to be made.

Insight, I do wish you would stop reading into my posts things that are not there. It's becoming awfully tiresome of you.

Sorry Rally, how did you want me to read it? I thought I was being fair to you.

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: Rally, "In general terms, the difference is that on Holes Bay Road there is plenty of scope to drive at 70mph plus (albeit illegal and dangerous), whereas in Ashley Road, Parkstone there's hardly any scope for getting above 25mph." . And you have even tried to suggest that the pictures I have provided do not suggest inconsistent speed limits!!! . Now I know for sure, you talk nothing but C**P! . Thanks

I take it that you don't agree with me, then.

rosesfunfair wrote:
Since this camera at Holes Bay was installed I have the perfect way to escape ever being caught out and legally robbed by it: I do not ever drive up this stretch of road. I would rather drive the long way round. Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?

Rally wrote:

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: Rally, "In general terms, the difference is that on Holes Bay Road there is plenty of scope to drive at 70mph plus (albeit illegal and dangerous), whereas in Ashley Road, Parkstone there's hardly any scope for getting above 25mph." . And you have even tried to suggest that the pictures I have provided do not suggest inconsistent speed limits!!! . Now I know for sure, you talk nothing but C**P! . Thanks

I take it that you don't agree with me, then.

Seriously, dorsetspeed, the 30mph limit on Holes Bay Road is necessary because - as Rossi 27 has already explained to you: 'the lights are at an approach to numerous hazards... you are approaching 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, entrance to supermarket and a roundabout, ' Yet you choose - quite irresponsibly, in my opinion - to see the junction as safe for no better reason than the DSCP stating that the reduced speed limit and introduction of the speed-on-green camera is "not about casualty reduction". How you can see as safe a junction with 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, a constantly busy entrance to supermarket and a constantly busy and not particularly simple roundabout is totally beyond me - and a lot of other folks, too, I should imagine. BTW, being only a comparatively straightforward crossroads is what sets Wessex Gate Retail Park apart from the Sterte Road to Towngate Bridge layout. And driving along Ashley Road, Parkstone is generally less of a challenge than manoeuvering one's way through the ASDA/Towngate Bridge area.

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: Rally, "In general terms, the difference is that on Holes Bay Road there is plenty of scope to drive at 70mph plus (albeit illegal and dangerous), whereas in Ashley Road, Parkstone there's hardly any scope for getting above 25mph." . And you have even tried to suggest that the pictures I have provided do not suggest inconsistent speed limits!!! . Now I know for sure, you talk nothing but C**P! . Thanks

I take it that you don't agree with me, then.

Seriously, dorsetspeed, the 30mph limit on Holes Bay Road is necessary because - as Rossi 27 has already explained to you: 'the lights are at an approach to numerous hazards... you are approaching 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, entrance to supermarket and a roundabout, ' Yet you choose - quite irresponsibly, in my opinion - to see the junction as safe for no better reason than the DSCP stating that the reduced speed limit and introduction of the speed-on-green camera is "not about casualty reduction". How you can see as safe a junction with 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, a constantly busy entrance to supermarket and a constantly busy and not particularly simple roundabout is totally beyond me - and a lot of other folks, too, I should imagine. BTW, being only a comparatively straightforward crossroads is what sets Wessex Gate Retail Park apart from the Sterte Road to Towngate Bridge layout. And driving along Ashley Road, Parkstone is generally less of a challenge than manoeuvering one's way through the ASDA/Towngate Bridge area.

Then if the 30mph limit is essential, install a speed activated illuminated sign well before the camera, the fact that the camera has criminalised 7000 drivers in just a few months 'proves' that something is wrong at the site and it needs to be addressed. This will undoubtedly reduce the revenue ..but then, it's not about the revenue is it?

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Rally wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: Rally, "In general terms, the difference is that on Holes Bay Road there is plenty of scope to drive at 70mph plus (albeit illegal and dangerous), whereas in Ashley Road, Parkstone there's hardly any scope for getting above 25mph." . And you have even tried to suggest that the pictures I have provided do not suggest inconsistent speed limits!!! . Now I know for sure, you talk nothing but C**P! . Thanks

I take it that you don't agree with me, then.

Seriously, dorsetspeed, the 30mph limit on Holes Bay Road is necessary because - as Rossi 27 has already explained to you: 'the lights are at an approach to numerous hazards... you are approaching 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, entrance to supermarket and a roundabout, ' Yet you choose - quite irresponsibly, in my opinion - to see the junction as safe for no better reason than the DSCP stating that the reduced speed limit and introduction of the speed-on-green camera is "not about casualty reduction". How you can see as safe a junction with 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, a constantly busy entrance to supermarket and a constantly busy and not particularly simple roundabout is totally beyond me - and a lot of other folks, too, I should imagine. BTW, being only a comparatively straightforward crossroads is what sets Wessex Gate Retail Park apart from the Sterte Road to Towngate Bridge layout. And driving along Ashley Road, Parkstone is generally less of a challenge than manoeuvering one's way through the ASDA/Towngate Bridge area.

Then if the 30mph limit is essential, install a speed activated illuminated sign well before the camera, the fact that the camera has criminalised 7000 drivers in just a few months 'proves' that something is wrong at the site and it needs to be addressed. This will undoubtedly reduce the revenue ..but then, it's not about the revenue is it?

Both HolidayMaker and I are thinking that the problem (or part of it) involves the siting of the 30mph road sign and lack of signs after it. A properly placed speed activated illuminated sign warning drivers to slow down may well resolve the problem some motorists have with the Sterte Road junction, camera, etc. Don't increase the speed limit and or remove the camera. Instead make motorists more aware of them at an earlier point in their journey along that stretch. Perhaps Dorset Speed could look into this.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, Rossi, look at the pictures. The Asda junction is about 600ft from the camera. You could brake from 60 about 3 times over in this distance!! (And the roundabout is even further) Ped crossings make it safer, not more dangerous for peds. Cylists will be off the road on cycle tracks. Compare it to normal 30 limit streets. .. And Rally thinks the correct speed to drive on busy 30 streets should be determined by “scope”. Who’s? Mine (which would actually be 20 in most places on busy streets), or Citroen Saxo Boy’s passion wagon with thumping subs and dustbin exhausts 60? .. Get a grip!!

Insight wrote:
Dorsetspeed? ...why are you continuing this now irrelevant arguement with Rossi?
According to todays article that I've just been reading, in which you've been interviewed. There are already council plans in motion to scrap all the cameras, apparently after the summer break.
Isn't it time to leave these camera supporters in the past tense and get on with lobbying to get more police on the roads so that they can start doing the job properly again?
The views of the speed camera supporters are now little more than tomorrows chip paper or is it a case of old habits and all that?

dorsetspeed wrote:
..but the simple fact is, this area has not been an accident problem area according to the DSCP's own figures, now or in the past with a higher limit. We're not talking about the A35. It did not need the speed reduction, and it is simple to realise why when seen from above. Drivers need to take responsibility for ALL their actions, not just keeping to speed limits - "I hit a pedestrian but it's ok because I hit them at the speed limit"

Insight wrote:
Dorsetspeed? ...why are you continuing this now irrelevant arguement with Rossi? According to todays article that I've just been reading, in which you've been interviewed. There are already council plans in motion to scrap all the cameras, apparently after the summer break. Isn't it time to leave these camera supporters in the past tense and get on with lobbying to get more police on the roads so that they can start doing the job properly again? The views of the speed camera supporters are now little more than tomorrows chip paper or is it a case of old habits and all that?

Rossi 27 wrote:

Insight wrote: Dorsetspeed? ...why are you continuing this now irrelevant arguement with Rossi? According to todays article that I've just been reading, in which you've been interviewed. There are already council plans in motion to scrap all the cameras, apparently after the summer break. Isn't it time to leave these camera supporters in the past tense and get on with lobbying to get more police on the roads so that they can start doing the job properly again? The views of the speed camera supporters are now little more than tomorrows chip paper or is it a case of old habits and all that?

I am afraid that the only irrelevance here is your opinion,once the cameras have gone we can look forward to no policing of these areas at all. If you for one minute believe that Chief Constables will suddenly start spending money on more traffic officers to counter speeding and dangerous driving then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Rossi 27 wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote:
..but the simple fact is, this area has not been an accident problem area according to the DSCP's own figures, now or in the past with a higher limit. We're not talking about the A35. It did not need the speed reduction, and it is simple to realise why when seen from above. Drivers need to take responsibility for ALL their actions, not just keeping to speed limits - "I hit a pedestrian but it's ok because I hit them at the speed limit"

How you can possibly say that the area did'nt need a 30mph speed limit is beyond me , if your argument is purely based on studying Google maps then it says it all. Like I have said to Insight I suggest you get to know this area better on the ground before passing judgement on how the traffic operates and were the dangers are. You are a great one for spouting statistics but as we all know in the real world they mean nothing.

Rally wrote:

rosesfunfair wrote: Since this camera at Holes Bay was installed I have the perfect way to escape ever being caught out and legally robbed by it: I do not ever drive up this stretch of road. I would rather drive the long way round. Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?

rosesfunfair wrote: 'Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?' What, even when it's only for a few seconds? Such impatience, rosesfunfair, such impatience...

rosesfunfair wrote:

Rally wrote:

rosesfunfair wrote: Since this camera at Holes Bay was installed I have the perfect way to escape ever being caught out and legally robbed by it: I do not ever drive up this stretch of road. I would rather drive the long way round. Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?

rosesfunfair wrote: 'Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?' What, even when it's only for a few seconds? Such impatience, rosesfunfair, such impatience...

No impatience at all Rally, quite the opposite if you read what I said 'I would rather drive the long way round' IE Wimborne Road/ Fleetsbridge at 30mph! Its not impatience it's principle. I have no problem adhering to speed limits but 30mph for a dual carriageway is totally ridiculous.

Rally wrote:

rosesfunfair wrote:

Rally wrote:

rosesfunfair wrote: Since this camera at Holes Bay was installed I have the perfect way to escape ever being caught out and legally robbed by it: I do not ever drive up this stretch of road. I would rather drive the long way round. Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?

rosesfunfair wrote: 'Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?' What, even when it's only for a few seconds? Such impatience, rosesfunfair, such impatience...

No impatience at all Rally, quite the opposite if you read what I said 'I would rather drive the long way round' IE Wimborne Road/ Fleetsbridge at 30mph! Its not impatience it's principle. I have no problem adhering to speed limits but 30mph for a dual carriageway is totally ridiculous.

Southbound from the 30mph speed limit sign to ASDA is approximately 0.2 miles, that's just over 350 yards. In my humble opinion, anybody who avoids this 350 yard stretch just because its posted speed limit is 10mph or more below what they think it should be is showing signs of being an impatient driver. But as you will no doubt appreciate, rosesfunfair, I could be completely wrong. :) Anyway, it won't harm to put this in its proper perspective: it is not a case of '30mph for a dual carriageway', it's a 350 yard (500 yard if stretched to the Towngate Bridge junction) stretch of a dual carriageway leading into a busy junction.

Rally wrote:
Dorsetspeed wrote wrote, '... this is an entirely different road to normal 30 streets...' This is yet more misleading gumph from dorsetspeed. You see, we are not dealing with a simple road here; we are dealing with an approximately 500 yards stretch of carriageway that has within or next to 3 sets of traffic lights, 4 lane divisions, pedestrian crossings, a constantly busy entrance to a vast supermarket and a constantly busy and not particularly straightforward roundabout. Dorsetspeed is right in so far as this section of Holes Bay Road is entirely different to 'normal 30 streets', but it is not different in the sense that dorsetspeed wants people to believe it is, i.e. safer. Increasing the speed limit from 30mph to 40mph or more will not make this 500 yard section of carriageway any safer than it is, but there is always the possibility that such an increase could render it unsafe. The fact is the worst thing anybody can say about this 30mph posted speed limit is that it adds a few seconds to motorists journey time. Why jeopardise people's safety for a few seconds of journey time? In answer to those who will now ask (as they do over the 40mph limit on the Wessex Way), well, why not decrease the speed limit to 20mph, 10mph, 1mph...?, Common-Sense, that's why not.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, you're going round in circles again! Check previous messages

rosesfunfair wrote:

Rally wrote:

rosesfunfair wrote:

Rally wrote:

rosesfunfair wrote: Since this camera at Holes Bay was installed I have the perfect way to escape ever being caught out and legally robbed by it: I do not ever drive up this stretch of road. I would rather drive the long way round. Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?

rosesfunfair wrote: 'Who wants to drive on a 30mph dual cariageway anyway?' What, even when it's only for a few seconds? Such impatience, rosesfunfair, such impatience...

No impatience at all Rally, quite the opposite if you read what I said 'I would rather drive the long way round' IE Wimborne Road/ Fleetsbridge at 30mph! Its not impatience it's principle. I have no problem adhering to speed limits but 30mph for a dual carriageway is totally ridiculous.

Southbound from the 30mph speed limit sign to ASDA is approximately 0.2 miles, that's just over 350 yards. In my humble opinion, anybody who avoids this 350 yard stretch just because its posted speed limit is 10mph or more below what they think it should be is showing signs of being an impatient driver. But as you will no doubt appreciate, rosesfunfair, I could be completely wrong. :) Anyway, it won't harm to put this in its proper perspective: it is not a case of '30mph for a dual carriageway', it's a 350 yard (500 yard if stretched to the Towngate Bridge junction) stretch of a dual carriageway leading into a busy junction.

I avoid the stretch because I disagree with the installation of the camera and the unneccessary reduction of a perfectly harmless speed limit just to catch out people to generate revenue. How can you say im impatient when I use a longer route at a prolonged 30mph limit? I should add that I have a clean license and have never so much as been pulled over. I also support road safety however this is policing by proximity. I will not enter into any more discussion on the matter but you seem defiant to argue everybody's point even when it can be fully justified. Are you also denying that DSCP said that this camera is not for casualty reduction and are you saying that before the speed limit was reduced you thought it was dangerous?

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, you're going round in circles again! Check previous messages

HolidayMaker wrote:
Rally, I certainly think that no matter what number you put on the reduced speed limit sign it needs to be big, repeated, flashing sign would be superb, combined speed limit/camera signs and '30mph zone ahead' signs with a speed camera on prior the 30mph would really help alot of innocent drivers avoid points and a fine. I don't mind what the limit is, but I do agree that the repetitiveness of the 50mph signs does make you somewhat 'blind' to the speed limit signs in the same way I become blind to what my wife is wearing.....black jeans and a white blouse I think......****, white t-shirt!!

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, I’m not used to this from you, 40 sign might be more helpful, maybe the number of 50 signs are not helping, etc. What I’m more used to is that the limit IS 30 and there IS a 30 sign, so if you do go through any more than 5 over, you should get fined because you’re a dangerous driver either deliberately ignores the law or who can’t act on a large number 30? You’ve always dismissed “excuses”, now not? I’m happy to see it of course. Yes, I’m sure the numbers and positions of signs might be a problem, and there are probably several more.

HolidayMaker wrote:
Rally, I certainly think that no matter what number you put on the reduced speed limit sign it needs to be big, repeated, flashing sign would be superb, combined speed limit/camera signs and '30mph zone ahead' signs with a speed camera on prior the 30mph would really help alot of innocent drivers avoid points and a fine. I don't mind what the limit is, but I do agree that the repetitiveness of the 50mph signs does make you somewhat 'blind' to the speed limit signs in the same way I become blind to what my wife is wearing.....black jeans and a white blouse I think......****, white t-shirt!!