Latest News
| COWBOYS WANTED |  | | | YOUR THOUGHTS: | | | | VIEW FROM THE HILL | | | | WHEELS NEWS | | |
|
|
|
SPEED TICKET SHOCK
DRIVERS in the BH postcode district are the most likely in the country to be caught speeding, a shock survey has revealed.
In a top ten table of motorists to receive at least one speeding conviction in the past five years, Bournemouth and Poole appeared an astonishing four times - more than any UK area.
The village of Radlett in Hertfordshire topped the table, with 27 per cent of drivers snapped by speed cameras. But Bournemouth's Westbourne came second, and Boscombe, Parkstone and West Cliff all featured prominently.
These findings are sure to leave drivers across the conurbation, already reeling from record fuel prices, feeling the odds really are stacked against them.
Those least likely to fall foul to the Gatso are drivers in Glasgow's G22 area, where just 4.1 per cent have recent points for speeding.
Borough of Poole councillor Phil Eades said: "This table suggests that drivers in BH are six times worse than Glasgow drivers.
"This is clearly nonsensical and the only explanation can be the number and the locations of speed cameras rather than the driving habits or abilities locally."
The councillor says the speed camera on Castle Lane East in Iford, Bournemouth, is partially hidden behind a tree, and Poole's Castle Hill speed camera is also placed "a bit sneakily".
He added: "These are more about revenue raising rather than driver education or casualty reduction.
"Everyone would support cameras outside schools or hospitals but it cannot be right that the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership - with the full support of all local councils - is overseeing a situation where BH residents are the most penalised postcode area anywhere in the country."
The survey, carried out by Admiral Insurance, put data from 1.5million motorists under the spotlight.
Admiral managing director Sue Longthorn said: "One thing is for sure, there are certain parts of the country where people are far more likely to have a conviction for speeding and there are parts where hardly anyone has."
A Dorset Safety Camera Partnership spokesman refused to comment because he felt the survey was commercially driven and argued the results were not a true representation of the national picture.
Speeding hotspots:
1. WD7 postcode, Radlett, Herts, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 27.0%
2. BH4, Westbourne, Bournemouth, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 26.4%
3. HP27, Princes Risborough, Bucks, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 25.0%
4. BH5, Boscombe, Bournemouth, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 23.6%
5. BH14, Parkstone, Poole, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 23.6%
6. HP15, Holmer Green & Hazlemere, Bucks, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 23.1%
7. HP8, Chalfont St Giles, Bucks, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 22.0%
8. MK17, Woburn, Beds, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 21.6%
9. RG9, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 21.4%
10. BH2, West Cliff, Bournemouth, percentage of drivers with speeding conviction 21.1%
6:16am Thursday 24th July 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 7:15am Thu 24 Jul 08
As someone from Westbourne with points on my licence I suppose this survey is probably right - most of the people in my road drive cars and will have no doubt have been caught out at some time speeding.
Personally i'd rather have cameras outside schools etc than where I got done on the wessex way just before the national speed limit starts. To get done at 54 in a 50 makes me slightly cross but thats the way it goes - they need the money.
I read in the echo about a serial burglar and drug user who was given a suspended sentence (with no financial penalty ) recently. How come I cant be given a suspended driving fine ? If I got caught again I should have to pay twice. That would seem to be reasonable and fair and would probably make people slow down more. But saying that, its not about justice but about the council needing the money.
As someone from Westbourne with points on my licence I suppose this survey is probably right - most of the people in my road drive cars and will have no doubt have been caught out at some time speeding.
Personally i'd rather have cameras outside schools etc than where I got done on the wessex way just before the national speed limit starts. To get done at 54 in a 50 makes me slightly cross but thats the way it goes - they need the money.
I read in the echo about a serial burglar and drug user who was given a suspended sentence (with no financial penalty ) recently. How come I cant be given a suspended driving fine ? If I got caught again I should have to pay twice. That would seem to be reasonable and fair and would probably make people slow down more. But saying that, its not about justice but about the council needing the money.
Posted by: muffin the mule, wallisdown on 7:56am Thu 24 Jul 08
its simple really ,the Tories under Thatcher sold off every asset we had so the country has no 'earner' well fines on motorists are the 'new earner',and fair enough that we get fined but why the points - its a fearsome system absolutely wreck yor life (if you get a ban )for the most minor infringement say 4 x over the 30 limit at 35 mph - it defies logic and doesnt treat everyone the same way ,if you drive for a living ,everything goes,if you are a casual driver it may make not the slightest difference to your life - the system is flawed and thats the biggest issue and rightly so especially as its only another tax which you cant complain about because it is self inflicted.the system needs a complete overhaul
its simple really ,the Tories under Thatcher sold off every asset we had so the country has no 'earner' well fines on motorists are the 'new earner',and fair enough that we get fined but why the points - its a fearsome system absolutely wreck yor life (if you get a ban )for the most minor infringement say 4 x over the 30 limit at 35 mph - it defies logic and doesnt treat everyone the same way ,if you drive for a living ,everything goes,if you are a casual driver it may make not the slightest difference to your life - the system is flawed and thats the biggest issue and rightly so especially as its only another tax which you cant complain about because it is self inflicted.the system needs a complete overhaul
Posted by: Podster, Bournemouth on 8:38am Thu 24 Jul 08
Partially hidden... sneakily placed? Those are just excuses for getting caught!
As someone who has recently attended a driver awarness day for speeding in Hampshire, I am now very conscious of the potential consequences of driving just 4 or 5 mph above the speed limit.
The answer is simple - stick to the speed limit and you won't get any points!!
Partially hidden... sneakily placed? Those are just excuses for getting caught!
As someone who has recently attended a driver awarness day for speeding in Hampshire, I am now very conscious of the potential consequences of driving just 4 or 5 mph above the speed limit.
The answer is simple - stick to the speed limit and you won't get any points!!
Posted by: Phil, Poole on 8:54am Thu 24 Jul 08
Or just buy a sat-nav system that'll alert you to speed cameras and, hey presto, you're very unlikely to get caught. That's the problem: some of the worst speeders can get away with it, as well as driving recklessly. We need more traffic police on the roads.
Or just buy a sat-nav system that'll alert you to speed cameras and, hey presto, you're very unlikely to get caught. That's the problem: some of the worst speeders can get away with it, as well as driving recklessly. We need more traffic police on the roads.
Posted by: Podster, Bournemouth on 9:43am Thu 24 Jul 08
And your point is what exactly? It's like that joke about elephant powder... if you don't see any elephants then it must be assumed to work.
And taking your line of thought one step further, you seem to be suggesting that camera sites are extremely safe. So if every strip of road had it's speed limit enforced with a zero tolerance policy then there would be NO more fatalities? An interesting idea...
And your point is what exactly? It's like that joke about elephant powder... if you don't see any elephants then it must be assumed to work.
And taking your line of thought one step further, you seem to be suggesting that camera sites are extremely safe. So if every strip of road had it's speed limit enforced with a zero tolerance policy then there would be NO more fatalities? An interesting idea...
Posted by: sinbad, upton on 10:50am Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]muffin the mule[/bold] wrote:
its simple really ,the Tories under Thatcher sold off every asset we had so the country has no 'earner' well fines on motorists are the 'new earner',and fair enough that we get fined but why the points - its a fearsome system absolutely wreck yor life (if you get a ban )for the most minor infringement say 4 x over the 30 limit at 35 mph - it defies logic and doesnt treat everyone the same way ,if you drive for a living ,everything goes,if you are a casual driver it may make not the slightest difference to your life - the system is flawed and thats the biggest issue and rightly so especially as its only another tax which you cant complain about because it is self inflicted.the system needs a complete overhaul [/quote] Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"?
muffin the mule wrote:
its simple really ,the Tories under Thatcher sold off every asset we had so the country has no 'earner' well fines on motorists are the 'new earner',and fair enough that we get fined but why the points - its a fearsome system absolutely wreck yor life (if you get a ban )for the most minor infringement say 4 x over the 30 limit at 35 mph - it defies logic and doesnt treat everyone the same way ,if you drive for a living ,everything goes,if you are a casual driver it may make not the slightest difference to your life - the system is flawed and thats the biggest issue and rightly so especially as its only another tax which you cant complain about because it is self inflicted.the system needs a complete overhaul
Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"?
Posted by: omegaman, Bournemouth on 11:03am Thu 24 Jul 08
Many cameras in this area cannot be seen beacause of trees etc. The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership does nothing about this. They also refuse to give any legal reason why & when tempory cameras are used.
Many cameras in this area cannot be seen beacause of trees etc. The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership does nothing about this. They also refuse to give any legal reason why & when tempory cameras are used.
Posted by: muffin the mule, wallisdown on 11:05am Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Podster[/bold] wrote:
And your point is what exactly? It's like that joke about elephant powder... if you don't see any elephants then it must be assumed to work.
And taking your line of thought one step further, you seem to be suggesting that camera sites are extremely safe. So if every strip of road had it's speed limit enforced with a zero tolerance policy then there would be NO more fatalities? An interesting idea...[/quote] [bold]YOU[/bold] got done for speeding - not me .you need to learn the lesson instead of preaching to the rest of us .i am not saying camera sites are safe or an road is safe where someone is speeding but you cant police them all and we all see idiots out on the roads every day - cameras are a revenue source and no mistake ..people will be killed on the roads ,where there are no cameras people will exceed the speed limit .there are constraints on our time and occassionally we need to get a move on to meet deadlines. but where is the justification for a speed camera at 2-3 oclock in the morning ? the roads arent overun with people walking are they . fatalities are a fact of life and not always the fault of the driver.but you do the course and suddenly you are an authority on the matter
Podster wrote:
And your point is what exactly? It's like that joke about elephant powder... if you don't see any elephants then it must be assumed to work.
And taking your line of thought one step further, you seem to be suggesting that camera sites are extremely safe. So if every strip of road had it's speed limit enforced with a zero tolerance policy then there would be NO more fatalities? An interesting idea...
YOU got done for speeding - not me .you need to learn the lesson instead of preaching to the rest of us .i am not saying camera sites are safe or an road is safe where someone is speeding but you cant police them all and we all see idiots out on the roads every day - cameras are a revenue source and no mistake ..people will be killed on the roads ,where there are no cameras people will exceed the speed limit .there are constraints on our time and occassionally we need to get a move on to meet deadlines. but where is the justification for a speed camera at 2-3 oclock in the morning ? the roads arent overun with people walking are they . fatalities are a fact of life and not always the fault of the driver.but you do the course and suddenly you are an authority on the matter
Posted by: muffin the mule, wallisdown on 11:08am Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]sinbad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]muffin the mule[/bold] wrote:
its simple really ,the Tories under Thatcher sold off every asset we had so the country has no 'earner' well fines on motorists are the 'new earner',and fair enough that we get fined but why the points - its a fearsome system absolutely wreck yor life (if you get a ban )for the most minor infringement say 4 x over the 30 limit at 35 mph - it defies logic and doesnt treat everyone the same way ,if you drive for a living ,everything goes,if you are a casual driver it may make not the slightest difference to your life - the system is flawed and thats the biggest issue and rightly so especially as its only another tax which you cant complain about because it is self inflicted.the system needs a complete overhaul [/quote] Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"?[/quote] firstly there is an allowable speedo error of 10% what difference ever will/has 2 mph made to the fatality totals - at least apply some logic
sinbad wrote:
muffin the mule wrote:
its simple really ,the Tories under Thatcher sold off every asset we had so the country has no 'earner' well fines on motorists are the 'new earner',and fair enough that we get fined but why the points - its a fearsome system absolutely wreck yor life (if you get a ban )for the most minor infringement say 4 x over the 30 limit at 35 mph - it defies logic and doesnt treat everyone the same way ,if you drive for a living ,everything goes,if you are a casual driver it may make not the slightest difference to your life - the system is flawed and thats the biggest issue and rightly so especially as its only another tax which you cant complain about because it is self inflicted.the system needs a complete overhaul
Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"?
firstly there is an allowable speedo error of 10% what difference ever will/has 2 mph made to the fatality totals - at least apply some logic
Posted by: In Absentia, Bournemouth on 11:14am Thu 24 Jul 08
If you look at an AA road atlas of Britain, you can see how heavily the cameras are concentrated in our conurbation. We have more cameras than Southampton and Portsmouth combined!
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership exists to basically fund its own salaries and provide extra tax for the government. We need a local council leader to be brave enough to follow the example of Swindon and get rid of loads of them.
I'm sure that a number in our area do not meet the installation criteria and the one in Castle Lane on the way to Iford is pointless, the traffic is so choked along there it would be an achievement to actually reach 30 mph!
If you look at an AA road atlas of Britain, you can see how heavily the cameras are concentrated in our conurbation. We have more cameras than Southampton and Portsmouth combined!
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership exists to basically fund its own salaries and provide extra tax for the government. We need a local council leader to be brave enough to follow the example of Swindon and get rid of loads of them.
I'm sure that a number in our area do not meet the installation criteria and the one in Castle Lane on the way to Iford is pointless, the traffic is so choked along there it would be an achievement to actually reach 30 mph!
Posted by: Dorsetknob, Lytchett Matravers on 11:16am Thu 24 Jul 08
I believe the principles are sound but the appeals process does not fairly treat the person who beleives they are innocent but has no means of challenging the technology, particularly with mobile units
I believe the principles are sound but the appeals process does not fairly treat the person who beleives they are innocent but has no means of challenging the technology, particularly with mobile units
Posted by: simon, bournemouth on 11:58am Thu 24 Jul 08
i think camera's probably do save lives (if theyre placed where lives are at risk) but what i object to is covering many motorway miles everyday like i do, and witnessing people driving up peoples behinds and going from 3rd lane to 1st lane to aceive an exit, and never ever indicate anywhere, including on rounabouts, and yet people who are good drivers, can be penalised for going 4 mph over a 50 limit on a duel carradge way. Yes i do speak from experiance, and apart from this instance, i actualy drve as well as i did on my test day many years ago. Also if you watch things like Police Camera Action or whatever on tv, some jolly police officer generally stops a driver and says "slow it down mate, and i'll let you go this time" whereas dorset police completely throw the book at you.
i think camera's probably do save lives (if theyre placed where lives are at risk) but what i object to is covering many motorway miles everyday like i do, and witnessing people driving up peoples behinds and going from 3rd lane to 1st lane to aceive an exit, and never ever indicate anywhere, including on rounabouts, and yet people who are good drivers, can be penalised for going 4 mph over a 50 limit on a duel carradge way. Yes i do speak from experiance, and apart from this instance, i actualy drve as well as i did on my test day many years ago. Also if you watch things like Police Camera Action or whatever on tv, some jolly police officer generally stops a driver and says "slow it down mate, and i'll let you go this time" whereas dorset police completely throw the book at you.
Posted by: rayc, Poole on 12:36pm Thu 24 Jul 08
The proof that the camera policy has gfailed can be found in the Echo. They have run "keep carnage of our roads" campaings etc. The Dorset Partnership are secrative and hide behind the data protection act when asked for information.
Portsmouth council have threatened to withdraw funding from the Hampshire Partnership because they refuse to provide them information on the cameras within their area. This is in spite of them paying £400,000 a year to support them!
The proof that the camera policy has gfailed can be found in the Echo. They have run "keep carnage of our roads" campaings etc. The Dorset Partnership are secrative and hide behind the data protection act when asked for information.
Portsmouth council have threatened to withdraw funding from the Hampshire Partnership because they refuse to provide them information on the cameras within their area. This is in spite of them paying £400,000 a year to support them!
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 12:41pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote]Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"?
[/quote]
Not all 17%s are equal.
Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"?
Not all 17%s are equal.
Posted by: Adam, Bournemouth on 12:49pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Its simple [bold]DON'T SPEED.[/bold]
If nobody sped then no-one would get caught and then these "money-making" partnerships won't be making any money!!!
The amount of times I go up the A338 and get overtaken by idiots only to catch up with them at roundabouts still amazes me. What time are you saving? Since religiously sticking to the speed limit my petrol consumption has reduced therefore saving me money!!!
Its simple
DON'T SPEED.
If nobody sped then no-one would get caught and then these "money-making" partnerships won't be making any money!!!
The amount of times I go up the A338 and get overtaken by idiots only to catch up with them at roundabouts still amazes me. What time are you saving? Since religiously sticking to the speed limit my petrol consumption has reduced therefore saving me money!!!
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 12:52pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"? [/quote] Not all 17%s are equal. [/quote] Well said.
PokesdownMark wrote:
Since when is 17% over the speed limit "creeping over"?
Not all 17%s are equal.
Well said.
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 12:54pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70.
V annoying.
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70.
V annoying.
Posted by: dibbles, Bournemouth on 1:15pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Jonny[/bold] wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70. V annoying.[/quote] I think its got something to do with the lengths of road between roundabouts etc, volume of traffic and stopping distances. I believe that slow drivers on these roads cause more accidents than anyone.
Jonny wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70. V annoying.
I think its got something to do with the lengths of road between roundabouts etc, volume of traffic and stopping distances. I believe that slow drivers on these roads cause more accidents than anyone.
Posted by: Newsreader, North Dorset on 1:17pm Thu 24 Jul 08
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout.
I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout.
I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.
Posted by: Rogman, Boscombe East on 1:27pm Thu 24 Jul 08
I live just around the corner from the one on Castle Lane East (for almost 25 years) and have never yet seen an accident there! So why was it there in the first place?
Yes - have them near schools etc but get rid of them on A and trunk roads - they are usually not needed.
I live just around the corner from the one on Castle Lane East (for almost 25 years) and have never yet seen an accident there! So why was it there in the first place?
Yes - have them near schools etc but get rid of them on A and trunk roads - they are usually not needed.
Posted by: Rogman, Boscombe East on 1:30pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Jonny[/bold] wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70. V annoying.[/quote] Good question - this road, for the most part, would be totally safe at 90 or even 100mph.
Jonny wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70. V annoying.
Good question - this road, for the most part, would be totally safe at 90 or even 100mph.
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 1:38pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Jonny[/bold] wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70.
V annoying.[/quote] I think there were some bad accidents. I remember when it was 70mph it was a bit hairy at times. Everyone piling on the brakes for the old queens park roundabout!
Now its 50 there still are accidents. Especially around cooper dean. Its very hard to know how much speed cameras contribute to safety. I thought the elephant powder comment was very apt. But I think increasing numbers of people are seeing the speed camera phenomenon for what it is... an big experiment and a major distraction from some other important road safety issues.
Jonny wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70.
V annoying.
I think there were some bad accidents. I remember when it was 70mph it was a bit hairy at times. Everyone piling on the brakes for the old queens park roundabout!
Now its 50 there still are accidents. Especially around cooper dean. Its very hard to know how much speed cameras contribute to safety. I thought the elephant powder comment was very apt. But I think increasing numbers of people are seeing the speed camera phenomenon for what it is... an big experiment and a major distraction from some other important road safety issues.
Posted by: Paul, Bournemouth, Northbourne on 1:50pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Some camera sites are obviously picked for revenue collection. Others are at sites where safety is an issue.
If you really are concerned about cameras, and especially the 'romming' safety camera which is used now and again. Then purchase a Beltronics Radar detector !
That way you'll know which camera sites are live and which that are not. There are around 20 camera sites in the area but Bournemouth have only 6 or so cameras that are moved from site to site. Poole has even less live sites.
Some camera sites are obviously picked for revenue collection. Others are at sites where safety is an issue.
If you really are concerned about cameras, and especially the 'romming' safety camera which is used now and again. Then purchase a Beltronics Radar detector !
That way you'll know which camera sites are live and which that are not. There are around 20 camera sites in the area but Bournemouth have only 6 or so cameras that are moved from site to site. Poole has even less live sites.
Posted by: simon, bournemouth on 1:52pm Thu 24 Jul 08
on joining the 338 to bournemouth from christchurch, one has to join traffic travelling at 60mph+ because the morons travelling from the ringwood end wont move to the right lane, because they cant be bothered. signage should be more pronuonced here, as its a slip road. The speed limit at this point is 60mph as the 50 limit starts later on. This is an extremily dangerous part of the A338. Cameras on the 338 are cash collectors. If they were their to promote safety, then one would assume they'd put them where they are actualy needed.
on joining the 338 to bournemouth from christchurch, one has to join traffic travelling at 60mph+ because the morons travelling from the ringwood end wont move to the right lane, because they cant be bothered. signage should be more pronuonced here, as its a slip road. The speed limit at this point is 60mph as the 50 limit starts later on. This is an extremily dangerous part of the A338. Cameras on the 338 are cash collectors. If they were their to promote safety, then one would assume they'd put them where they are actualy needed.
Posted by: Top_Starfish, UK on 2:30pm Thu 24 Jul 08
What’s the big rush – leave a bit earlier, drive slower, save some of that expensive fuel and don’t worry about the cameras. It’s easy to keep below the limit if you’re a good driver and you’re not distracted by phone calls (hands free or worse, handheld), fiddling with your radio, sat nav, lighting a fag, etc. After all we all managed to stay below the limit for our driving tests.
If you claim you are a safe observant driver and can drive above the limit in a safe manner then speed cameras shouldn’t worry you. You should be able to spot them in plenty of time, If you can’t spot a big reflective yellow box, then what chance would you have at spotting a kid stepping out behind a parked van. If you get caught you are speeding AND unobservant therefore you deserve it.
What’s the big rush – leave a bit earlier, drive slower, save some of that expensive fuel and don’t worry about the cameras. It’s easy to keep below the limit if you’re a good driver and you’re not distracted by phone calls (hands free or worse, handheld), fiddling with your radio, sat nav, lighting a fag, etc. After all we all managed to stay below the limit for our driving tests.
If you claim you are a safe observant driver and can drive above the limit in a safe manner then speed cameras shouldn’t worry you. You should be able to spot them in plenty of time, If you can’t spot a big reflective yellow box, then what chance would you have at spotting a kid stepping out behind a parked van. If you get caught you are speeding AND unobservant therefore you deserve it.
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 2:35pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Top_Starfish[/bold] wrote:
What’s the big rush – leave a bit earlier, drive slower, save some of that expensive fuel and don’t worry about the cameras. It’s easy to keep below the limit if you’re a good driver and you’re not distracted by phone calls (hands free or worse, handheld), fiddling with your radio, sat nav, lighting a fag, etc. After all we all managed to stay below the limit for our driving tests. If you claim you are a safe observant driver and can drive above the limit in a safe manner then speed cameras shouldn’t worry you. You should be able to spot them in plenty of time, If you can’t spot a big reflective yellow box, then what chance would you have at spotting a kid stepping out behind a parked van. If you get caught you are speeding AND unobservant therefore you deserve it.[/quote] Whilst I don't agree you do have a very good point there.
But its the sneaky vans that are the real problem for not GATSO's, because as you say they tend to be fairly spottable if your observing the road properly.
Top_Starfish wrote:
What’s the big rush – leave a bit earlier, drive slower, save some of that expensive fuel and don’t worry about the cameras. It’s easy to keep below the limit if you’re a good driver and you’re not distracted by phone calls (hands free or worse, handheld), fiddling with your radio, sat nav, lighting a fag, etc. After all we all managed to stay below the limit for our driving tests. If you claim you are a safe observant driver and can drive above the limit in a safe manner then speed cameras shouldn’t worry you. You should be able to spot them in plenty of time, If you can’t spot a big reflective yellow box, then what chance would you have at spotting a kid stepping out behind a parked van. If you get caught you are speeding AND unobservant therefore you deserve it.
Whilst I don't agree you do have a very good point there.
But its the sneaky vans that are the real problem for not GATSO's, because as you say they tend to be fairly spottable if your observing the road properly.
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 2:39pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Nobody has mentioned about the age of speed limits which were based on stopping distances.
Modern cars stop in what 4 or 5 times less distance than they used to?
This should be considered, especially on 3+ lane motorways. Well in my opinion.
The other real problem for me is not speed but the distance many many drivers (don't) keep between vehicles - very few use the "2nd rule" (I'm sorry but especially female drivers - and I say this from experience and not prejudice)
Nobody has mentioned about the age of speed limits which were based on stopping distances.
Modern cars stop in what 4 or 5 times less distance than they used to?
This should be considered, especially on 3+ lane motorways. Well in my opinion.
The other real problem for me is not speed but the distance many many drivers (don't) keep between vehicles - very few use the "2nd rule" (I'm sorry but especially female drivers - and I say this from experience and not prejudice)
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 2:40pm Thu 24 Jul 08
* sorry that should have read the "two second rule"
* sorry that should have read the "two second rule"
Posted by: Top_Starfish, UK on 3:52pm Thu 24 Jul 08
I’m sure most of the safety camera partnerships still use marked vans – I’ve not spotted an unmarked one yet and I do 2-3000 miles per month. I completely agree on the 2 second rule though, especially as a ‘slower’ driver
(ie one who obeys the limit) as I’m passing lorries, other cars (usually BMWs and Audis to be honest) will sit 2 foot from my bumper because I dare to do the speed limit.
By the way I would agree that 80mph is generally safe for cars on the motorway, but the problem comes with speed differentials - people pulling out at 60-65mph to overtake a lorry into faster moving traffic is dangerous.
Also the government could not be seen to sanction a higher limit, due to the huge increase in fuel consumption and subsequent CO2 emissions. There has been talk of stricter motorway enforcement on the basis of Kyoto commitments and some groups are pushing for a drop in the national speed limit.
I’m sure most of the safety camera partnerships still use marked vans – I’ve not spotted an unmarked one yet and I do 2-3000 miles per month. I completely agree on the 2 second rule though, especially as a ‘slower’ driver
(ie one who obeys the limit) as I’m passing lorries, other cars (usually BMWs and Audis to be honest) will sit 2 foot from my bumper because I dare to do the speed limit.
By the way I would agree that 80mph is generally safe for cars on the motorway, but the problem comes with speed differentials - people pulling out at 60-65mph to overtake a lorry into faster moving traffic is dangerous.
Also the government could not be seen to sanction a higher limit, due to the huge increase in fuel consumption and subsequent CO2 emissions. There has been talk of stricter motorway enforcement on the basis of Kyoto commitments and some groups are pushing for a drop in the national speed limit.
Posted by: kerry.w, Bournemouth on 4:16pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Speed cameras are not the way forward to speeding motorists especially with modern electronics, all one has to do is buy a very modern piece of detection hardware and you can not only pick up the cameras but these pieces of equipment will now alert you to the cameras that are actually active. Even the little van with the blacked out windows is no threat to the new technology. Cameras are also counter productive as they may surprise some drivers causing an over reaction on the brakes, and most drivers will brake even if they are driving just below the speed limit where the camera is situated. Cameras are a coffer topping up method for any council.
Speed cameras are not the way forward to speeding motorists especially with modern electronics, all one has to do is buy a very modern piece of detection hardware and you can not only pick up the cameras but these pieces of equipment will now alert you to the cameras that are actually active. Even the little van with the blacked out windows is no threat to the new technology. Cameras are also counter productive as they may surprise some drivers causing an over reaction on the brakes, and most drivers will brake even if they are driving just below the speed limit where the camera is situated. Cameras are a coffer topping up method for any council.
Posted by: Frank, Poole on 4:21pm Thu 24 Jul 08
This is absolutely not the sort of publicity the town needs to attract tourism on which our local economy depends. The Council should have the courage to follow Swindon's example and leave the Dorset Speed Camera partnership. Dorset Police say they get the lowest Government grant but that is not an excuse to compensate by fining motorists unnecessarily.
This is absolutely not the sort of publicity the town needs to attract tourism on which our local economy depends. The Council should have the courage to follow Swindon's example and leave the Dorset Speed Camera partnership. Dorset Police say they get the lowest Government grant but that is not an excuse to compensate by fining motorists unnecessarily.
Posted by: AndyC, Bournemouth on 4:50pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Newsreader[/bold] wrote:
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout. I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.[/quote] Indeed - I can think of a few places where I guess the restirctions are to restrict the noise pollution from the road for residents. I for one fully support speed restrictions for this reason.
Newsreader wrote:
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout. I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.
Indeed - I can think of a few places where I guess the restirctions are to restrict the noise pollution from the road for residents. I for one fully support speed restrictions for this reason.
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 4:57pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Newsreader[/bold] wrote:
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout. I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.[/quote] Ermm shouldn't that read 60?
Dual Carriage ways are 70 not 60. (not many people know that)
Newsreader wrote:
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout. I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.
Ermm shouldn't that read 60?
Dual Carriage ways are 70 not 60. (not many people know that)
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 5:00pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Obviously I meant to type "shouldn't that mean 70"
But I'm moron.
Obviously I meant to type "shouldn't that mean 70"
But I'm moron.
Posted by: sinbad, upton on 5:09pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Jonny[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Newsreader[/bold] wrote: It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout. I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.[/quote] Ermm shouldn't that read 60? Dual Carriage ways are 70 not 60. (not many people know that)[/quote] Only for cars & motorcycles where national speed limit signs are displayed
Jonny wrote:
Newsreader wrote: It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout. I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.
Ermm shouldn't that read 60? Dual Carriage ways are 70 not 60. (not many people know that)
Only for cars & motorcycles where national speed limit signs are displayed
Posted by: Jonny, Alum Chine on 5:13pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Sorry I was assuming he was in a car.
Sorry I was assuming he was in a car.
Posted by: ActrosMan, Poole on 5:45pm Thu 24 Jul 08
I was on the A31 yesterday in 5 mile tailback heading east. The reason? Hampshire Police had set up two speed cameras. Drivers saw them and slowed down to below the 60mph limit (I reckon the traffic was doing about 30mph at one point!) So all they achieved was to create a massive tail back. I bet no one got a ticket. When I passed the vans one operator was sunning himself and looking bored. Total stupidity. If they want to enforce the speed limit there they should be operating at night when the boy racers use it as race track!
I was on the A31 yesterday in 5 mile tailback heading east. The reason? Hampshire Police had set up two speed cameras. Drivers saw them and slowed down to below the 60mph limit (I reckon the traffic was doing about 30mph at one point!) So all they achieved was to create a massive tail back. I bet no one got a ticket. When I passed the vans one operator was sunning himself and looking bored. Total stupidity. If they want to enforce the speed limit there they should be operating at night when the boy racers use it as race track!
Posted by: Hugh, Bournemouth on 6:04pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Jonny[/bold] wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70. V annoying.[/quote] [bold]I have had a clean license for over 35 years.[/bold] Hence I feel that I am entitled to speak with authority on this subject.
I well remember the Wessex Way before the current 50 mph speed limit. [italic]It was an absolute race track with habitual dangerous driving.[/italic] I dreaded going on it.
When the speed limit came in it was transformed into a pleasant and safe route, and amazingly with all the traffic going at the same speed the congestion and jams disappeared.
Hence I am now a convert to the need for [bold]enforced[/bold] speed limits.
Jonny wrote:
Does anyone know why the Wessex Way is 50 anyway? National road speed for a dual carriage way is 70. V annoying.
I have had a clean license for over 35 years. Hence I feel that I am entitled to speak with authority on this subject.
I well remember the Wessex Way before the current 50 mph speed limit.
It was an absolute race track with habitual dangerous driving. I dreaded going on it.
When the speed limit came in it was transformed into a pleasant and safe route, and amazingly with all the traffic going at the same speed the congestion and jams disappeared.
Hence I am now a convert to the need for
enforced speed limits.
Posted by: 2Much, New Forest on 9:21am Fri 25 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Newsreader[/bold] wrote:
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout.
I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.[/quote] It was changed "supposedly" because of cyclists..i've seen 4 or 5 on that road since.
Newsreader...it's 70 along that stretch to the A31!
Newsreader wrote:
It is 50 but then is 60 when you get outside Bournemouth and are heading to the A31 roundabout.
I would guess that it is 50 because it is a built up area with lots of houses around, therefore a slower speed means less noise.
It was changed "supposedly" because of cyclists..i've seen 4 or 5 on that road since.
Newsreader...it's 70 along that stretch to the A31!
Posted by: Phil, Poole on 11:38am Fri 25 Jul 08
Who cares what the speed limit is on the A338 to the A31? No one sticks to it anyway! Long may we be allowed to speed to our hearts' content and cause massive pile-ups to kill and maim. It's our democratic right. ;)
Who cares what the speed limit is on the A338 to the A31? No one sticks to it anyway! Long may we be allowed to speed to our hearts' content and cause massive pile-ups to kill and maim. It's our democratic right. ;)
Posted by: Chris, Bournemouth on 2:10pm Fri 25 Jul 08
The speed will not prevent the accident from happening but it will reduce the scale of the injuries. As a by-product, it will save a hell of a lot of petrol and prevent you from being fined. I have never been caught speeding, for the obvious reason; my tank takes me 15% further at 70 than at 80; and I owe the NHS a lot of thanks for putting me back together again (I have more than my share of titanium!) when I unfortunately found myself in the path of a (very) speeding motorist.
It amazes me that people slow down to 30mph for a speed camera and then, immediately, accelerate again. This I can only assume is wilful disobedience of the law!
One of the biggest risks of sppeding over 30 in built up areas is someone ahead of you pulling out of a junction, not expecting you to reach them so quickly.
The speed will not prevent the accident from happening but it will reduce the scale of the injuries. As a by-product, it will save a hell of a lot of petrol and prevent you from being fined. I have never been caught speeding, for the obvious reason; my tank takes me 15% further at 70 than at 80; and I owe the NHS a lot of thanks for putting me back together again (I have more than my share of titanium!) when I unfortunately found myself in the path of a (very) speeding motorist.
It amazes me that people slow down to 30mph for a speed camera and then, immediately, accelerate again. This I can only assume is wilful disobedience of the law!
One of the biggest risks of sppeding over 30 in built up areas is someone ahead of you pulling out of a junction, not expecting you to reach them so quickly.
Posted by: paul, poole on 3:04am Sat 26 Jul 08
The comments from all above are like reading a Book....again and again and again. The same old comments about why they're there, where they should be or not, rambling on about limits being broken because of this and that camera....how come no-one actually comes up with a definitive answer?
The comments from all above are like reading a Book....again and again and again. The same old comments about why they're there, where they should be or not, rambling on about limits being broken because of this and that camera....how come no-one actually comes up with a definitive answer?
Posted by: Hugh, Bournemouth on 4:45pm Sat 26 Jul 08
[quote][bold]paul[/bold] wrote:
The comments from all above are like reading a Book....again and again and again. The same old comments about why they're there, where they should be or not, rambling on about limits being broken because of this and that camera....how come no-one actually comes up with a definitive answer? [/quote] The simple answer is to obey the speed limits.
Simple!
paul wrote:
The comments from all above are like reading a Book....again and again and again. The same old comments about why they're there, where they should be or not, rambling on about limits being broken because of this and that camera....how come no-one actually comes up with a definitive answer?
The simple answer is to obey the speed limits.
Simple!
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
