Motorist clocked at 120mph on Dorset road

Dorset Echo: Motorist clocked at 120mph on Dorset road Motorist clocked at 120mph on Dorset road

SAFETY campaigners are calling for tougher penalties for speeding motorists after several drivers were clocked travelling at more than 100mph on Dorset’s roads.

The highest speed recorded by police in the past 12 months was 120mph on the A35 at the junction with the A350–50 miles above the limit.

Two more drivers were clocked speeding at 109mph and 107mph respectively on the Puddletown bypass.

Another speeder was stopped while doing 106mph on the A37 at Staggs Folly in a 60mph zone.

Across the country a motorist in on the M25 at Swanley holds the record for the highest speed clocked by a speed camera in England and Wales between April last year and May this year.

The figures were released by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).

IAM chief executive Simon Best said: “Speed limits are a limit. They are not a target to beat. Unfortunately this message has not got through to many motorists and it’s clear that efforts to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving continue to fail. “That’s why we need sustained campaigning by the government, motor industry and charities to keep ramming home the message that excessive speed kills. “Catching speeders at two or even three times the limit also shows the importance of keeping speed cameras at well-known black spots.

“The current guidelines on sentencing for excessive speeding offences are out of sync with modern roads, modern vehicles and society’s view of the value of lives lost in crashes. We all share the roads with these speeding drivers and the government must crack down on them with more consistent penalties and tougher measures to break their addiction for speed.”

• The highest speed recorded on 30mph road was 96mph on the B1288, on Leam Lane, Gateshead • The highest speed recorded on a 50mph road was on the A414 Stanstead Abbotts, Hertfordshire where a motorist clocked 119 mph • The highest speed recorded on a 60mph road was 127mph on the A413 Wendover By-Pass, Wendover The guidelines to magistrates on sentencing for speeding include: • 70 mph road: For driving between 101 and 110 mph. Fine plus 6 points or disqualified for 7-56 days.

• 50 mph road: For driving between 76 and 85 mph. Fine plus 6 points or disqualified for 7-56 days.

• 30 mph road: For driving between 51 and 60mph. Fine plus 6 points or disqualified for 7-56 days.

Comments (67)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:34am Wed 28 May 14

GMax says...

In some countries you automatically lose your license if caught speeding to excessive.
For example, most of Europe has a motorway speed limit of 120 kph, if you exceed this by 50 kph on top you automatically lose your license if caught.
Perhaps they need to start doing the same here.
.
GMax.
In some countries you automatically lose your license if caught speeding to excessive. For example, most of Europe has a motorway speed limit of 120 kph, if you exceed this by 50 kph on top you automatically lose your license if caught. Perhaps they need to start doing the same here. . GMax. GMax
  • Score: 13

10:36am Wed 28 May 14

IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE says...

Do 'speed limits' necessarily make for safer roads except around schools and in the middle of towns and villages?
Do 'speed limits' necessarily make for safer roads except around schools and in the middle of towns and villages? IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE
  • Score: -4

12:10pm Wed 28 May 14

heldon47 says...

As Dorset's roads are mainly country lanes despite many of them having A labels, then yes speed limits do help make roads safer. Think Puddletown to Blandford or the A31 from Bere Regis to Wimborne, A356 Frampton to Crewkerne and many more. And even more so on the roads designated as B or less. Or are you advocating anything goes? Relying on drivers being sensible is a dodgy choice as evidenced every day, on every road.
As Dorset's roads are mainly country lanes despite many of them having A labels, then yes speed limits do help make roads safer. Think Puddletown to Blandford or the A31 from Bere Regis to Wimborne, A356 Frampton to Crewkerne and many more. And even more so on the roads designated as B or less. Or are you advocating anything goes? Relying on drivers being sensible is a dodgy choice as evidenced every day, on every road. heldon47
  • Score: 14

12:18pm Wed 28 May 14

elloello1980 says...

think bike. think fool.
think bike. think fool. elloello1980
  • Score: -11

1:32pm Wed 28 May 14

wowfood says...

Telling some drivers not to go at 120mph in their sporty car is pointless. The questions I ask are as follows (as a non motorist)

Max speed limit is 70mph, so why are we selling cars that can reach 120mph? That's just inviting people to speed.

Maximum fixed penalty fine is £60, if it goes to court it's what, £1000? If I can afford a sports car or heck even a super car, the fixed penalty is chump change and even the court fine would probably be easily scoffed at.

They want to clamp down on speeding, right now our system encourages it (imo) at least for those who can afford it. (Those who can't often don't have cars that can reasonably go over the speed limit)
Telling some drivers not to go at 120mph in their sporty car is pointless. The questions I ask are as follows (as a non motorist) Max speed limit is 70mph, so why are we selling cars that can reach 120mph? That's just inviting people to speed. Maximum fixed penalty fine is £60, if it goes to court it's what, £1000? If I can afford a sports car or heck even a super car, the fixed penalty is chump change and even the court fine would probably be easily scoffed at. They want to clamp down on speeding, right now our system encourages it (imo) at least for those who can afford it. (Those who can't often don't have cars that can reasonably go over the speed limit) wowfood
  • Score: 3

2:20pm Wed 28 May 14

dorsetspeed says...

The simple fact is that on it's own, exceeding the speed limit is a remarkably small contributor to road death and serious injury. It is only a factor in only 7% of accidents involving a death or serious injury, where other clearly more significant factors can include drink / drug driving, road rage, racing, dangerous overtaking, criminal activity, etc. The attention given to speed limits and enforcements has not resulted from the size of the problem but the amount of money that can be made. So unfortunately, operations are optimised to target high volumes of marginal speeders normally driving safely and well below the original design speed of the roads when car technology was much worse, not the excessive and dangerous cases mentioned above which no-one would argue should not be targeted, and not even at inappropriate speed within the limit which many will be surprised to hear is a factor in just as many deaths and serious injuries. Meanwhile simple driver error including failing to look properly which is a factor in an astonishing 10 times as many deaths and serious injuries is not dealt with at all presumably as it's difficult to make money out of.

So before we ask for stiffer penalties for speeding which is not even a factor at all in 93% of ksi accidents, we need to break down the current regime driven purely by cash profit, be clear about the objectives and base road safety instead on competent, honest, consistent, open and transparent policies.
The simple fact is that on it's own, exceeding the speed limit is a remarkably small contributor to road death and serious injury. It is only a factor in only 7% of accidents involving a death or serious injury, where other clearly more significant factors can include drink / drug driving, road rage, racing, dangerous overtaking, criminal activity, etc. The attention given to speed limits and enforcements has not resulted from the size of the problem but the amount of money that can be made. So unfortunately, operations are optimised to target high volumes of marginal speeders normally driving safely and well below the original design speed of the roads when car technology was much worse, not the excessive and dangerous cases mentioned above which no-one would argue should not be targeted, and not even at inappropriate speed within the limit which many will be surprised to hear is a factor in just as many deaths and serious injuries. Meanwhile simple driver error including failing to look properly which is a factor in an astonishing 10 times as many deaths and serious injuries is not dealt with at all presumably as it's difficult to make money out of. So before we ask for stiffer penalties for speeding which is not even a factor at all in 93% of ksi accidents, we need to break down the current regime driven purely by cash profit, be clear about the objectives and base road safety instead on competent, honest, consistent, open and transparent policies. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 7

2:32pm Wed 28 May 14

JamesYoung says...

There is an easy solution to all of this. All cars should be fitted with GPS transponders that monitor driving behaviour. This would dramatically reduce the amount of time the police spend investigating RTAs, would stop the crash for cash brigade in their tracks, and could be used to automatically issue tickets to anybody speeding.
For the motorist: some insurance companies are already offering cheaper premiums to people with these black boxes.
There is an easy solution to all of this. All cars should be fitted with GPS transponders that monitor driving behaviour. This would dramatically reduce the amount of time the police spend investigating RTAs, would stop the crash for cash brigade in their tracks, and could be used to automatically issue tickets to anybody speeding. For the motorist: some insurance companies are already offering cheaper premiums to people with these black boxes. JamesYoung
  • Score: -4

2:40pm Wed 28 May 14

elloello1980 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
There is an easy solution to all of this. All cars should be fitted with GPS transponders that monitor driving behaviour. This would dramatically reduce the amount of time the police spend investigating RTAs, would stop the crash for cash brigade in their tracks, and could be used to automatically issue tickets to anybody speeding.
For the motorist: some insurance companies are already offering cheaper premiums to people with these black boxes.
yeah lets get spied on even more!
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: There is an easy solution to all of this. All cars should be fitted with GPS transponders that monitor driving behaviour. This would dramatically reduce the amount of time the police spend investigating RTAs, would stop the crash for cash brigade in their tracks, and could be used to automatically issue tickets to anybody speeding. For the motorist: some insurance companies are already offering cheaper premiums to people with these black boxes.[/p][/quote]yeah lets get spied on even more! elloello1980
  • Score: 2

3:23pm Wed 28 May 14

WykeReg says...

Excessive speed is not to be recommended. But, I am amazed that any driver could find a road in Dorset where such a thing is achievable. Most of the roads I use would be instantly recognizable to any stage-coach driver from the 18th century, including some of the potholes!!

A report in the news today shows that the world's leading cause of death in the 18-29 age group isn't drugs but road deaths. That's where road-safety campaigners should be focusing their attention, not just chasing a guy in a Ferrari. And I nearly forgot the plague of the mobility scooters.....
Excessive speed is not to be recommended. But, I am amazed that any driver could find a road in Dorset where such a thing is achievable. Most of the roads I use would be instantly recognizable to any stage-coach driver from the 18th century, including some of the potholes!! A report in the news today shows that the world's leading cause of death in the 18-29 age group isn't drugs but road deaths. That's where road-safety campaigners should be focusing their attention, not just chasing a guy in a Ferrari. And I nearly forgot the plague of the mobility scooters..... WykeReg
  • Score: 8

6:42pm Wed 28 May 14

GMax says...

What I forgot to mention earlier is that there are even a few countries in Europe that besides the fines will also inpound the car and have it crushed if convicted of excessive speeding.
.
GMax.
What I forgot to mention earlier is that there are even a few countries in Europe that besides the fines will also inpound the car and have it crushed if convicted of excessive speeding. . GMax. GMax
  • Score: 2

7:56pm Wed 28 May 14

Top Gear says...

Puddletown bypass is a notoriously fast road. Everyone knows that there are usually police hiding on the slip road. Just have to be careful and not get caught.
Puddletown bypass is a notoriously fast road. Everyone knows that there are usually police hiding on the slip road. Just have to be careful and not get caught. Top Gear
  • Score: 3

10:06pm Wed 28 May 14

blobby96 says...

I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part.
I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part. blobby96
  • Score: 5

6:39am Thu 29 May 14

TenBobDylanThomasHardy says...

blobby96 wrote:
I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part.
But he was, potentially, putting others at risk of harm.
[quote][p][bold]blobby96[/bold] wrote: I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part.[/p][/quote]But he was, potentially, putting others at risk of harm. TenBobDylanThomasHardy
  • Score: -3

2:58pm Thu 29 May 14

wurzelbasher says...

How about "Name and Shame"!
How about "Name and Shame"! wurzelbasher
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Thu 29 May 14

Diesel Dog says...

TenBobDylanThomasHar
dy
wrote:
blobby96 wrote:
I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part.
But he was, potentially, putting others at risk of harm.
I bet that was a brilliant experience and cheaper than a roller coaster ride due to not being caught.
Luckily badgers foxes and deer aren't adrenalin junkies their just unpredictable or thick.

My mate wrote off a 32 tonne artic by saying hello to 3 cows on the A30 at 50mph on Bodmin Moor around midnight. Luckily he lived to tell the tale they were made into pet food.
[quote][p][bold]TenBobDylanThomasHar dy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blobby96[/bold] wrote: I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part.[/p][/quote]But he was, potentially, putting others at risk of harm.[/p][/quote]I bet that was a brilliant experience and cheaper than a roller coaster ride due to not being caught. Luckily badgers foxes and deer aren't adrenalin junkies their just unpredictable or thick. My mate wrote off a 32 tonne artic by saying hello to 3 cows on the A30 at 50mph on Bodmin Moor around midnight. Luckily he lived to tell the tale they were made into pet food. Diesel Dog
  • Score: 4

10:12pm Thu 29 May 14

Tinker2 says...

I used to drive a german car that was electronicaly limited to 155mph. Not a lot of use in the UK one would think, but in Germany things are different.
While parts of the autobahns and many other freeway-style highways have a posted limits up to 130 km/h (81 mph) based on accident experience, congestion and other facts, many rural sections of the Autobahn have no general speed limit. The German Highway Code (Straßenverkehrs-Or
dnung) section on speed begins with the requirement which may be rendered in English:

"Any person driving a vehicle may only drive so fast that the car is under control. Speeds must be adapted to the road, traffic, visibility and weather conditions as well as the personal skills and characteristics of the vehicle and load."

My old car was capable of 155mph and the characteristics of the vehicle took this into account. This included; wide low profile tyres, traction control and ABS. The braking was extreemly effective and could stop from speed in a very short distance. There is therefore, a very great difference between a car such as this travelling at speed well within it's safe perameters and a more modest urban car being driven to the very limits (& beyond) of safety.

There is no excuse, in any type of vehicle, to be speeding in a built-up area. But on a motorway, or duel carriageway, when conditions allow - well I side with the Germans !
I used to drive a german car that was electronicaly limited to 155mph. Not a lot of use in the UK one would think, but in Germany things are different. While parts of the autobahns and many other freeway-style highways have a posted limits up to 130 km/h (81 mph) based on accident experience, congestion and other facts, many rural sections of the Autobahn have no general speed limit. The German Highway Code (Straßenverkehrs-Or dnung) section on speed begins with the requirement [1] which may be rendered in English: "Any person driving a vehicle may only drive so fast that the car is under control. Speeds must be adapted to the road, traffic, visibility and weather conditions as well as the personal skills and characteristics of the vehicle and load." My old car was capable of 155mph and the characteristics of the vehicle took this into account. This included; wide low profile tyres, traction control and ABS. The braking was extreemly effective and could stop from speed in a very short distance. There is therefore, a very great difference between a car such as this travelling at speed well within it's safe perameters and a more modest urban car being driven to the very limits (& beyond) of safety. There is no excuse, in any type of vehicle, to be speeding in a built-up area. But on a motorway, or duel carriageway, when conditions allow - well I side with the Germans ! Tinker2
  • Score: 7

11:47am Tue 3 Jun 14

lifecoach says...

Is there a list available of people who have been caught driving more than 20% under the speed limit as this is responsible for more accidents than speed. Compare our Accident numbers with our European neighbours where speed is not an issue and i bet we lose!
Is there a list available of people who have been caught driving more than 20% under the speed limit as this is responsible for more accidents than speed. Compare our Accident numbers with our European neighbours where speed is not an issue and i bet we lose! lifecoach
  • Score: 6

1:32pm Tue 3 Jun 14

riverbend says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
The simple fact is that on it's own, exceeding the speed limit is a remarkably small contributor to road death and serious injury. It is only a factor in only 7% of accidents involving a death or serious injury, where other clearly more significant factors can include drink / drug driving, road rage, racing, dangerous overtaking, criminal activity, etc. The attention given to speed limits and enforcements has not resulted from the size of the problem but the amount of money that can be made. So unfortunately, operations are optimised to target high volumes of marginal speeders normally driving safely and well below the original design speed of the roads when car technology was much worse, not the excessive and dangerous cases mentioned above which no-one would argue should not be targeted, and not even at inappropriate speed within the limit which many will be surprised to hear is a factor in just as many deaths and serious injuries. Meanwhile simple driver error including failing to look properly which is a factor in an astonishing 10 times as many deaths and serious injuries is not dealt with at all presumably as it's difficult to make money out of.

So before we ask for stiffer penalties for speeding which is not even a factor at all in 93% of ksi accidents, we need to break down the current regime driven purely by cash profit, be clear about the objectives and base road safety instead on competent, honest, consistent, open and transparent policies.
7% is not a 'remarkably small' contributor to road deaths. If that 7% of road deaths were removed you would have 121 fewer grieving families given that there were 1730 people killed on the roads in the 12 months ending June 2013.
If you were tasked with attempting to reduce road deaths with incredibly limited resources you would throw everything you had at the easiest target.
You would relentlessly pursue that target until the next easiest overtook it and you would throw everything you had at that target instead.
You'd be a fool not to.
You probably think that you are one of the drivers safe enough to drive in excess of the speed limit in the same way that drink drivers think that they are fine to drive after 5 pints.
Eradicate excessive speed and you reduce road deaths by 7%. Ask any of the families who have suffered as a result of excessive speed and they would give the world for a chance that their loved one could have been one of the 7% still alive.
The fact that it is speed that happens to be the easiest target at the moment is irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: The simple fact is that on it's own, exceeding the speed limit is a remarkably small contributor to road death and serious injury. It is only a factor in only 7% of accidents involving a death or serious injury, where other clearly more significant factors can include drink / drug driving, road rage, racing, dangerous overtaking, criminal activity, etc. The attention given to speed limits and enforcements has not resulted from the size of the problem but the amount of money that can be made. So unfortunately, operations are optimised to target high volumes of marginal speeders normally driving safely and well below the original design speed of the roads when car technology was much worse, not the excessive and dangerous cases mentioned above which no-one would argue should not be targeted, and not even at inappropriate speed within the limit which many will be surprised to hear is a factor in just as many deaths and serious injuries. Meanwhile simple driver error including failing to look properly which is a factor in an astonishing 10 times as many deaths and serious injuries is not dealt with at all presumably as it's difficult to make money out of. So before we ask for stiffer penalties for speeding which is not even a factor at all in 93% of ksi accidents, we need to break down the current regime driven purely by cash profit, be clear about the objectives and base road safety instead on competent, honest, consistent, open and transparent policies.[/p][/quote]7% is not a 'remarkably small' contributor to road deaths. If that 7% of road deaths were removed you would have 121 fewer grieving families given that there were 1730 people killed on the roads in the 12 months ending June 2013. If you were tasked with attempting to reduce road deaths with incredibly limited resources you would throw everything you had at the easiest target. You would relentlessly pursue that target until the next easiest overtook it and you would throw everything you had at that target instead. You'd be a fool not to. You probably think that you are one of the drivers safe enough to drive in excess of the speed limit in the same way that drink drivers think that they are fine to drive after 5 pints. Eradicate excessive speed and you reduce road deaths by 7%. Ask any of the families who have suffered as a result of excessive speed and they would give the world for a chance that their loved one could have been one of the 7% still alive. The fact that it is speed that happens to be the easiest target at the moment is irrelevant. riverbend
  • Score: -1

1:43pm Tue 3 Jun 14

riverbend says...

On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax.
You know the speed limit.
You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose.
You choose to exceed the limit.
You get caught and fined.

The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted.

Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.
On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax. You know the speed limit. You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose. You choose to exceed the limit. You get caught and fined. The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted. Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get. riverbend
  • Score: -1

2:03pm Tue 3 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend wrote:
On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax.
You know the speed limit.
You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose.
You choose to exceed the limit.
You get caught and fined.

The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted.

Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.
Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax. You know the speed limit. You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose. You choose to exceed the limit. You get caught and fined. The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted. Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.[/p][/quote]Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

2:28pm Tue 3 Jun 14

riverbend says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax.
You know the speed limit.
You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose.
You choose to exceed the limit.
You get caught and fined.

The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted.

Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.
Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety
Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit.
It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught.
They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax. You know the speed limit. You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose. You choose to exceed the limit. You get caught and fined. The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted. Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.[/p][/quote]Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety[/p][/quote]Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit. It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught. They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit. riverbend
  • Score: -2

3:05pm Tue 3 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax.
You know the speed limit.
You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose.
You choose to exceed the limit.
You get caught and fined.

The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted.

Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.
Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety
Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit.
It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught.
They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit.
I see, so someone who drives at 31 in a 30 is nothing more than a child killer and anyone who does 29 in a 30 is a perfect safe driver, regardless of whether there are even any children even anywhere near, if it's a residential road or not, if it's dark, etc?

It might surprise you to know that just as many road deaths and serious injuries (that involve speed as any kind of factor) involve driving within the limit as over it, this backs up common sense that the limit is not quite the golden solution some seem to think it is. When you start with incorrect assumptions on the importance of the various factors you will reach the wrong conclusions and solutions, the wrong solutions in safety work result in more people being killed and seriously injured than the right solutions.

Far more suffer from the misplaced revenue driven enforcements we have than do from driving above the limit, for example, we have very little attention given to simple driver error, failing to look, etc, a factor in a shocking 10 times as many road deaths and serious injuries as speeding - but it's a lot more difficult to make money out of so it is neglected.

And modest speeding usually attracts a £100 fine and points, whereas corruption and perverting the course of justice (there are many more) often result in jail, so it is not just me, society considers that dishonest activities to make money are more serious than modest speeding.

I am not suggesting in any way the guy mentioned in this article is not an idiot - unfortunately, our road "safety" enforcement activities are idiotic (or worse) too.
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax. You know the speed limit. You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose. You choose to exceed the limit. You get caught and fined. The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted. Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.[/p][/quote]Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety[/p][/quote]Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit. It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught. They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit.[/p][/quote]I see, so someone who drives at 31 in a 30 is nothing more than a child killer and anyone who does 29 in a 30 is a perfect safe driver, regardless of whether there are even any children even anywhere near, if it's a residential road or not, if it's dark, etc? It might surprise you to know that just as many road deaths and serious injuries (that involve speed as any kind of factor) involve driving within the limit as over it, this backs up common sense that the limit is not quite the golden solution some seem to think it is. When you start with incorrect assumptions on the importance of the various factors you will reach the wrong conclusions and solutions, the wrong solutions in safety work result in more people being killed and seriously injured than the right solutions. Far more suffer from the misplaced revenue driven enforcements we have than do from driving above the limit, for example, we have very little attention given to simple driver error, failing to look, etc, a factor in a shocking 10 times as many road deaths and serious injuries as speeding - but it's a lot more difficult to make money out of so it is neglected. And modest speeding usually attracts a £100 fine and points, whereas corruption and perverting the course of justice (there are many more) often result in jail, so it is not just me, society considers that dishonest activities to make money are more serious than modest speeding. I am not suggesting in any way the guy mentioned in this article is not an idiot - unfortunately, our road "safety" enforcement activities are idiotic (or worse) too. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

3:41pm Tue 3 Jun 14

riverbend says...

Ok, let's make make a few points as easy as possible to understand.
1. The speed limit is the law. If you break it you risk getting a fine whether you agree with it or not.
2. The alcohol limit for driving is 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. If you exceed it you risk a fine and losing your licence whether you agree with it or not.
3. Theft is illegal. If you get caught you risk a fine or imprisonment whether you agree with it or not.

Play by the rules and you pay no stupidity tax.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You say that simple driver error (described in law as a momentary lapse of concentration) causes a shocking 10 times as many road deaths as excess speed but a momentary lapse of concentration is not an offence, it is a defence and one we are all prone to occasionally but which thankfully rarely results in a fatality.
Speeding, however is a deliberate act by drivers who deliberately break the law. Try using that as a defence in court when you are facing a berieved family and see how far it gets you.
The limit is set on each road for a reason but I'm guessing that you would rather chance your arm and put your foot down to get to your destination 5 minutes earlier rather than giving yourself more time and sticking to the limit.
Or perhaps it's the thrill of the speed itself that makes you think people's lives are less valuable than the wind in your hair.
Ok, let's make make a few points as easy as possible to understand. 1. The speed limit is the law. If you break it you risk getting a fine whether you agree with it or not. 2. The alcohol limit for driving is 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. If you exceed it you risk a fine and losing your licence whether you agree with it or not. 3. Theft is illegal. If you get caught you risk a fine or imprisonment whether you agree with it or not. Play by the rules and you pay no stupidity tax. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You say that simple driver error (described in law as a momentary lapse of concentration) causes a shocking 10 times as many road deaths as excess speed but a momentary lapse of concentration is not an offence, it is a defence and one we are all prone to occasionally but which thankfully rarely results in a fatality. Speeding, however is a deliberate act by drivers who deliberately break the law. Try using that as a defence in court when you are facing a berieved family and see how far it gets you. The limit is set on each road for a reason but I'm guessing that you would rather chance your arm and put your foot down to get to your destination 5 minutes earlier rather than giving yourself more time and sticking to the limit. Or perhaps it's the thrill of the speed itself that makes you think people's lives are less valuable than the wind in your hair. riverbend
  • Score: -2

3:58pm Tue 3 Jun 14

riverbend says...

Still too complicated?

NO SPEEDY SPEEDY, NO FINEY FINEY

Why don't you get your own back on those pesky cameras and stick to the limit. That will really pi55 them off!
Still too complicated? NO SPEEDY SPEEDY, NO FINEY FINEY Why don't you get your own back on those pesky cameras and stick to the limit. That will really pi55 them off! riverbend
  • Score: -2

4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

Where did I say that I did not think that breaking the limit (speed or alcohol) was breaking the law? Yes drivers pay "stupidity" tax if that's how you want to put it.

You seem to be confusing "enforcing the law" with "road safety work" They should be the same thing but the dash for cash has distorted even that.

The Dorset Way and the A338, the favourite locations for enforcement, have had limits reduced by councillors trying to be seen to be doing something, not by engineers or those who understand road safety, and in the case of the Dorset Way, 20% below even average speeds and only because they thought a 60 limit (which they incorrectly thought that the average measured speed of 62 indicated was right) would be "confusing" !!! The £million pound Holes Bay camera was placed on a 30 limit where you could literally land a small aircraft, and yet the 30 limit on the other side of the bay, which goes through a port, a school, shops and houses on a narrow busy street has the same limit which has never been enforced!! These are not speed limits set for any proper or sensible "reason" and not enforcements designed to enhance anything other than balance sheets.

If we are concerned with road safety, we would pick the lowest hanging fruit first. We would target the biggest problems first and we would optimise the law to assist with this. Speed enforcement covers about 1% of road space, targeting 7% of only a factor of KSIs, so cannot reduce ksis by more than a factor of 0.07% !! If we are concerned with reducing suffering on the roads, bereaved families, etc, we would start with something else that stood a chance of making some kind of difference.

Speeding enforcement does indeed "enforce the law" (although extremely badly as those who like to speed deliberately and excessively can easily avoid detection)

Road safety work and reducing suffering is a completely different matter, and when those with road safety responsibility lie and tell us they are working for our safety when they are in fact working for their job security, they are not only being dishonest, they are breaking many more serious laws, and causing more danger and suffering than a moderate speeder.
Where did I say that I did not think that breaking the limit (speed or alcohol) was breaking the law? Yes drivers pay "stupidity" tax if that's how you want to put it. You seem to be confusing "enforcing the law" with "road safety work" They should be the same thing but the dash for cash has distorted even that. The Dorset Way and the A338, the favourite locations for enforcement, have had limits reduced by councillors trying to be seen to be doing something, not by engineers or those who understand road safety, and in the case of the Dorset Way, 20% below even average speeds and only because they thought a 60 limit (which they incorrectly thought that the average measured speed of 62 indicated was right) would be "confusing" !!! The £million pound Holes Bay camera was placed on a 30 limit where you could literally land a small aircraft, and yet the 30 limit on the other side of the bay, which goes through a port, a school, shops and houses on a narrow busy street has the same limit which has never been enforced!! These are not speed limits set for any proper or sensible "reason" and not enforcements designed to enhance anything other than balance sheets. If we are concerned with road safety, we would pick the lowest hanging fruit first. We would target the biggest problems first and we would optimise the law to assist with this. Speed enforcement covers about 1% of road space, targeting 7% of only a factor of KSIs, so cannot reduce ksis by more than a factor of 0.07% !! If we are concerned with reducing suffering on the roads, bereaved families, etc, we would start with something else that stood a chance of making some kind of difference. Speeding enforcement does indeed "enforce the law" (although extremely badly as those who like to speed deliberately and excessively can easily avoid detection) Road safety work and reducing suffering is a completely different matter, and when those with road safety responsibility lie and tell us they are working for our safety when they are in fact working for their job security, they are not only being dishonest, they are breaking many more serious laws, and causing more danger and suffering than a moderate speeder. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

4:39pm Tue 3 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Top Gear wrote:
Puddletown bypass is a notoriously fast road. Everyone knows that there are usually police hiding on the slip road. Just have to be careful and not get caught.
Wonderful advice, let's all encourage the brain dead idiots with excessive lead in their right boots.
[quote][p][bold]Top Gear[/bold] wrote: Puddletown bypass is a notoriously fast road. Everyone knows that there are usually police hiding on the slip road. Just have to be careful and not get caught.[/p][/quote]Wonderful advice, let's all encourage the brain dead idiots with excessive lead in their right boots. breamoreboy
  • Score: -3

4:42pm Tue 3 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

blobby96 wrote:
I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part.
I'm confident that he always does 30mph in a 30 limit. Not.
[quote][p][bold]blobby96[/bold] wrote: I know someone who did 150mph on his motorbike on the puddletown bypass and there was no other traffic about anf he was not harming anyone else on the straight part.[/p][/quote]I'm confident that he always does 30mph in a 30 limit. Not. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

4:45pm Tue 3 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

lifecoach wrote:
Is there a list available of people who have been caught driving more than 20% under the speed limit as this is responsible for more accidents than speed. Compare our Accident numbers with our European neighbours where speed is not an issue and i bet we lose!
A good point. How many people are aware that driving too slowly during your driving test is an automatic fail for "failing to make progress"? At least it was when I passed mine, they could have changed the rules again by now.
[quote][p][bold]lifecoach[/bold] wrote: Is there a list available of people who have been caught driving more than 20% under the speed limit as this is responsible for more accidents than speed. Compare our Accident numbers with our European neighbours where speed is not an issue and i bet we lose![/p][/quote]A good point. How many people are aware that driving too slowly during your driving test is an automatic fail for "failing to make progress"? At least it was when I passed mine, they could have changed the rules again by now. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

4:49pm Tue 3 Jun 14

riverbend says...

It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place.

Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows?

I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability.

Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil.
It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place. Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows? I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability. Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil. riverbend
  • Score: -4

4:52pm Tue 3 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax.
You know the speed limit.
You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose.
You choose to exceed the limit.
You get caught and fined.

The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted.

Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.
Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety
Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit.
It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught.
They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit.
Awfully sorry but you're wasting your time. According to the infamous dorsetspeed mobile speed cameras are killers, as people exceeding the limit brake sharply, lose control and crash. That's right, it's not the driver's fault, it's the fault of the camera operator. What a load of tosh.
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax. You know the speed limit. You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose. You choose to exceed the limit. You get caught and fined. The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted. Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.[/p][/quote]Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety[/p][/quote]Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit. It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught. They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Awfully sorry but you're wasting your time. According to the infamous dorsetspeed mobile speed cameras are killers, as people exceeding the limit brake sharply, lose control and crash. That's right, it's not the driver's fault, it's the fault of the camera operator. What a load of tosh. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

5:10pm Tue 3 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend wrote:
It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place.

Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows?

I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability.

Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil.
So I think you are saying that because people were driving over the correct 70 limit, the solution chosen by the authorities was to reduce the limit to 50? Thanks for confirming the stupidity.

It's got nothing to do with what I want to do, all I want is credible, honest and effective laws and enforcements.
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place. Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows? I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability. Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil.[/p][/quote]So I think you are saying that because people were driving over the correct 70 limit, the solution chosen by the authorities was to reduce the limit to 50? Thanks for confirming the stupidity. It's got nothing to do with what I want to do, all I want is credible, honest and effective laws and enforcements. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 4

5:13pm Tue 3 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax.
You know the speed limit.
You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose.
You choose to exceed the limit.
You get caught and fined.

The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted.

Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.
Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety
Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit.
It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught.
They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit.
Awfully sorry but you're wasting your time. According to the infamous dorsetspeed mobile speed cameras are killers, as people exceeding the limit brake sharply, lose control and crash. That's right, it's not the driver's fault, it's the fault of the camera operator. What a load of tosh.
You are almost right, what I said was that there are risks and dangers to using cameras and that it is irresponsible of the police to ignore them. They should account for them and demonstrate a positive safety balance instead of sweeping those risks and negative outcomes under the carpet as they have done.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: On the other hand you could just see it as a stupidity tax. You know the speed limit. You have a speedo 18 inches from your nose. You choose to exceed the limit. You get caught and fined. The day that drink drivers, road ragers, careless drivers et al become more stupid than speeders by openly advertising their activity it will be they who are targeted. Until then speeders, you have to expect everything you get.[/p][/quote]Yes, almost a stupid as making money to keep yourself in work by abusing the law and endangering the public and claiming that it's all about public safety[/p][/quote]Please don't try to convince me that prosecuting those who break the law is somehow more immoral than killing a child by exceeding the speed limit. It is absolutely crazy that the authorities have appeased the likes of you by caving in and actually advertising where the speed cameras are located... yet stupid people STILL get caught. They should be hiding behind trees, around bends, anywhere to catch drivers who turn their vehicles into killing machines by driving them over the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Awfully sorry but you're wasting your time. According to the infamous dorsetspeed mobile speed cameras are killers, as people exceeding the limit brake sharply, lose control and crash. That's right, it's not the driver's fault, it's the fault of the camera operator. What a load of tosh.[/p][/quote]You are almost right, what I said was that there are risks and dangers to using cameras and that it is irresponsible of the police to ignore them. They should account for them and demonstrate a positive safety balance instead of sweeping those risks and negative outcomes under the carpet as they have done. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 2

6:09pm Tue 3 Jun 14

riverbend says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place.

Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows?

I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability.

Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil.
So I think you are saying that because people were driving over the correct 70 limit, the solution chosen by the authorities was to reduce the limit to 50? Thanks for confirming the stupidity.

It's got nothing to do with what I want to do, all I want is credible, honest and effective laws and enforcements.
You have them. It's just that while most of us abide by them whether we like them or not you blindly choose to arrogantly ignore them because you think the law does not apply to you and then whine when you get caught.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place. Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows? I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability. Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil.[/p][/quote]So I think you are saying that because people were driving over the correct 70 limit, the solution chosen by the authorities was to reduce the limit to 50? Thanks for confirming the stupidity. It's got nothing to do with what I want to do, all I want is credible, honest and effective laws and enforcements.[/p][/quote]You have them. It's just that while most of us abide by them whether we like them or not you blindly choose to arrogantly ignore them because you think the law does not apply to you and then whine when you get caught. riverbend
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Tue 3 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place.

Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows?

I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability.

Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil.
So I think you are saying that because people were driving over the correct 70 limit, the solution chosen by the authorities was to reduce the limit to 50? Thanks for confirming the stupidity.

It's got nothing to do with what I want to do, all I want is credible, honest and effective laws and enforcements.
You have them. It's just that while most of us abide by them whether we like them or not you blindly choose to arrogantly ignore them because you think the law does not apply to you and then whine when you get caught.
Oh dear. No we do not have credible, sensible limits as I have explained, and if the law enforces something that is not credible or sensible with zero tolerance the the law is not being credible or sensible either. I have also explained that it is nothing to do with me, however I would say that if I did want to ignore speed limits, I would be quite happy with things as they are as I could speed as much as I like where there are not bright yellow boxes or predictable stripy vans (99% of road space). You abide by stupid laws if you want, I will challenge them, that has nothing to do with breaking them. And when you challenge them, you will find how bad things really are as I will shortly reveal.
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: It's ironic how you blame councillors for lowering the speed limit when you would have been legally allowed to drive at higher speed if the likes of you had simply stuck to the original speed limit in the first place. Why do you want to drive faster than the law allows? I suspect it is because you think you are safe enough to do so and that makes you one of the most dangerous road users... the driver who overestimates their own ability. Why not stick to the speed limit from now on and go and nick a watch from debenhams instead? That way you'll still be able to get your thrill from breaking the law but the likelihood of killing someone in the process is almost nil.[/p][/quote]So I think you are saying that because people were driving over the correct 70 limit, the solution chosen by the authorities was to reduce the limit to 50? Thanks for confirming the stupidity. It's got nothing to do with what I want to do, all I want is credible, honest and effective laws and enforcements.[/p][/quote]You have them. It's just that while most of us abide by them whether we like them or not you blindly choose to arrogantly ignore them because you think the law does not apply to you and then whine when you get caught.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. No we do not have credible, sensible limits as I have explained, and if the law enforces something that is not credible or sensible with zero tolerance the the law is not being credible or sensible either. I have also explained that it is nothing to do with me, however I would say that if I did want to ignore speed limits, I would be quite happy with things as they are as I could speed as much as I like where there are not bright yellow boxes or predictable stripy vans (99% of road space). You abide by stupid laws if you want, I will challenge them, that has nothing to do with breaking them. And when you challenge them, you will find how bad things really are as I will shortly reveal. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

7:51am Wed 4 Jun 14

FrancisKing says...

@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
@ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner FrancisKing
  • Score: 1

8:10am Wed 4 Jun 14

riverbend says...

FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
[quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times? riverbend
  • Score: 1

8:58am Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
No, speed is not 100% responsible for how accidents end, there are other factors, such as attention and anticipation, braking performance, grip (weather), not to mention probably the biggest factor, distance. It is very rare that the free speed before the situation started to develop is the same as the impact speed. An alert driver reading the road ahead at 50 as circumstances allow is likely to be safer than a drugged driver at 30 obeying the speed limit. "Moving too fast to react in time" is like saying "100 grams is too much sugar to put in a cake". It is only part of the story, the other factor is how big is the cake? Safe driving involves maintaining a safe speed AND DISTANCE combination so that you can stop within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPEED.

Yes roads are designed to standards, such as the Dorset Way and A338 were designed for 70MPH traffic, now that cars have better tyres, abs brakes,handling, etc you can be sent on a £110 course for less than 60 and be preached at for driving "dangerously fast".

And why do those who run the enforcement systems seem to need to rely on dishonesty and secrecy if it is purely about safety?
[quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]No, speed is not 100% responsible for how accidents end, there are other factors, such as attention and anticipation, braking performance, grip (weather), not to mention probably the biggest factor, distance. It is very rare that the free speed before the situation started to develop is the same as the impact speed. An alert driver reading the road ahead at 50 as circumstances allow is likely to be safer than a drugged driver at 30 obeying the speed limit. "Moving too fast to react in time" is like saying "100 grams is too much sugar to put in a cake". It is only part of the story, the other factor is how big is the cake? Safe driving involves maintaining a safe speed AND DISTANCE combination so that you can stop within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPEED. Yes roads are designed to standards, such as the Dorset Way and A338 were designed for 70MPH traffic, now that cars have better tyres, abs brakes,handling, etc you can be sent on a £110 course for less than 60 and be preached at for driving "dangerously fast". And why do those who run the enforcement systems seem to need to rely on dishonesty and secrecy if it is purely about safety? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:04am Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

9:29am Wed 4 Jun 14

riverbend says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads?
Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster?
Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us.
Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field.
Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics.
Good luck.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.[/p][/quote]What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads? Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster? Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us. Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field. Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics. Good luck. riverbend
  • Score: -2

9:30am Wed 4 Jun 14

riverbend says...

Shreds.
Shreds. riverbend
  • Score: 0

9:47am Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads?
Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster?
Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us.
Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field.
Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics.
Good luck.
I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it.

I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe
ed.org.uk/limits/Def
ault.aspx
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.[/p][/quote]What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads? Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster? Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us. Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field. Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics. Good luck.[/p][/quote]I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it. I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14 Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/limits/Def ault.aspx dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

9:59am Wed 4 Jun 14

riverbend says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads?
Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster?
Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us.
Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field.
Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics.
Good luck.
I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it.

I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe

ed.org.uk/limits/Def

ault.aspx
In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.[/p][/quote]What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads? Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster? Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us. Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field. Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics. Good luck.[/p][/quote]I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it. I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14 Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/limits/Def ault.aspx[/p][/quote]In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right. riverbend
  • Score: 1

10:07am Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads?
Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster?
Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us.
Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field.
Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics.
Good luck.
I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it.

I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe


ed.org.uk/limits/Def


ault.aspx
In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right.
Actually I am a highly successful engineer and inventor and with professional safety responsibility for heavy machinery manufactured in the UK and sold around the world and therefore know exactly what professional safety work looks like here and elsewhere, and I can tell you for sure that if I did some of the things Dorset Police and the councils have done in the name of "safety" I would have been fired and possibly locked up by now.

If you disagree with anything I have written could you detail it?
[quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.[/p][/quote]What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads? Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster? Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us. Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field. Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics. Good luck.[/p][/quote]I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it. I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14 Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/limits/Def ault.aspx[/p][/quote]In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right.[/p][/quote]Actually I am a highly successful engineer and inventor and with professional safety responsibility for heavy machinery manufactured in the UK and sold around the world and therefore know exactly what professional safety work looks like here and elsewhere, and I can tell you for sure that if I did some of the things Dorset Police and the councils have done in the name of "safety" I would have been fired and possibly locked up by now. If you disagree with anything I have written could you detail it? dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

10:56am Wed 4 Jun 14

riverbend says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads?
Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster?
Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us.
Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field.
Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics.
Good luck.
I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it.

I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe



ed.org.uk/limits/Def



ault.aspx
In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right.
Actually I am a highly successful engineer and inventor and with professional safety responsibility for heavy machinery manufactured in the UK and sold around the world and therefore know exactly what professional safety work looks like here and elsewhere, and I can tell you for sure that if I did some of the things Dorset Police and the councils have done in the name of "safety" I would have been fired and possibly locked up by now.

If you disagree with anything I have written could you detail it?
So are Alan Sugar and James Dyson successful engineers and inventors but that gives them no greater qualification than you to judge safe speed limits.

But now you have my attention what is it that you have invented?
Please please PLEASE tell me that you invented the Gatso speed camera!!!
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.[/p][/quote]What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads? Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster? Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us. Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field. Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics. Good luck.[/p][/quote]I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it. I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14 Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/limits/Def ault.aspx[/p][/quote]In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right.[/p][/quote]Actually I am a highly successful engineer and inventor and with professional safety responsibility for heavy machinery manufactured in the UK and sold around the world and therefore know exactly what professional safety work looks like here and elsewhere, and I can tell you for sure that if I did some of the things Dorset Police and the councils have done in the name of "safety" I would have been fired and possibly locked up by now. If you disagree with anything I have written could you detail it?[/p][/quote]So are Alan Sugar and James Dyson successful engineers and inventors but that gives them no greater qualification than you to judge safe speed limits. But now you have my attention what is it that you have invented? Please please PLEASE tell me that you invented the Gatso speed camera!!! riverbend
  • Score: 1

11:22am Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

riverbend, you have a gift for ignoring the points inconvenient to you, do you work for Dorset Police or the Council by any chance? I explained that I have international safety responsibility for heavy machinery (including proper, formal safety work training). I have given you examples of limits which are totally ridiculous, a child of 6 would realise it let alone someone who has been studying "road safety" for more than 10 years which I have.

For example, (if you have looked at the evidence I provided) how can it make any sense to have a 60 limit at the entrance to the Lytchett Minster school which is also a tiny country road, and a limit of 30 on the Holes Bay Road where you could literally land a small aircraft? Is 59 past the school completely safe and 31 on the Holes Bay road dangerous?

Interesting to note that there are no accidents at the school, how could that possibly be without a nice low limit to keep us all safe? Might it be that the average driver can actually judge a sensible speed without having to be given a number in a circle? What a thought.
riverbend, you have a gift for ignoring the points inconvenient to you, do you work for Dorset Police or the Council by any chance? I explained that I have international safety responsibility for heavy machinery (including proper, formal safety work training). I have given you examples of limits which are totally ridiculous, a child of 6 would realise it let alone someone who has been studying "road safety" for more than 10 years which I have. For example, (if you have looked at the evidence I provided) how can it make any sense to have a 60 limit at the entrance to the Lytchett Minster school which is also a tiny country road, and a limit of 30 on the Holes Bay Road where you could literally land a small aircraft? Is 59 past the school completely safe and 31 on the Holes Bay road dangerous? Interesting to note that there are no accidents at the school, how could that possibly be without a nice low limit to keep us all safe? Might it be that the average driver can actually judge a sensible speed without having to be given a number in a circle? What a thought. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

11:46am Wed 4 Jun 14

riverbend says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend, you have a gift for ignoring the points inconvenient to you, do you work for Dorset Police or the Council by any chance? I explained that I have international safety responsibility for heavy machinery (including proper, formal safety work training). I have given you examples of limits which are totally ridiculous, a child of 6 would realise it let alone someone who has been studying "road safety" for more than 10 years which I have.

For example, (if you have looked at the evidence I provided) how can it make any sense to have a 60 limit at the entrance to the Lytchett Minster school which is also a tiny country road, and a limit of 30 on the Holes Bay Road where you could literally land a small aircraft? Is 59 past the school completely safe and 31 on the Holes Bay road dangerous?

Interesting to note that there are no accidents at the school, how could that possibly be without a nice low limit to keep us all safe? Might it be that the average driver can actually judge a sensible speed without having to be given a number in a circle? What a thought.
I admire your persistence in chasing your rainbow but doesn't the fact that you have 'studied' road safety for over 10 years and made no progress telling you something?

Come on, what have you invented?

And I suspect that the contribution you make to 'international safety' reaps similar results as your 'rid the world of speed limits' campaign.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: riverbend, you have a gift for ignoring the points inconvenient to you, do you work for Dorset Police or the Council by any chance? I explained that I have international safety responsibility for heavy machinery (including proper, formal safety work training). I have given you examples of limits which are totally ridiculous, a child of 6 would realise it let alone someone who has been studying "road safety" for more than 10 years which I have. For example, (if you have looked at the evidence I provided) how can it make any sense to have a 60 limit at the entrance to the Lytchett Minster school which is also a tiny country road, and a limit of 30 on the Holes Bay Road where you could literally land a small aircraft? Is 59 past the school completely safe and 31 on the Holes Bay road dangerous? Interesting to note that there are no accidents at the school, how could that possibly be without a nice low limit to keep us all safe? Might it be that the average driver can actually judge a sensible speed without having to be given a number in a circle? What a thought.[/p][/quote]I admire your persistence in chasing your rainbow but doesn't the fact that you have 'studied' road safety for over 10 years and made no progress telling you something? Come on, what have you invented? And I suspect that the contribution you make to 'international safety' reaps similar results as your 'rid the world of speed limits' campaign. riverbend
  • Score: -1

11:57am Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

I have 4 patents in my name, relating to machine features, not in fact to any safety device but demonstrating a strong ability to understand and solve problems.

I have made lots of progress: I have had many news articles raised, gained lots of support, and even despite the persistence of Dorset Police to ignore complaint and communication I have a serious complaint upheld by the IPCC nearing completion, I wish I could tell you more but cannot yet.

You suspect wrong: our products are compliant with regulations worldwide and no one has been injured by them.

You seem to be descending into personal insult, if you have any factual disagreements with anything I have written please detail them.
I have 4 patents in my name, relating to machine features, not in fact to any safety device but demonstrating a strong ability to understand and solve problems. I have made lots of progress: I have had many news articles raised, gained lots of support, and even despite the persistence of Dorset Police to ignore complaint and communication I have a serious complaint upheld by the IPCC nearing completion, I wish I could tell you more but cannot yet. You suspect wrong: our products are compliant with regulations worldwide and no one has been injured by them. You seem to be descending into personal insult, if you have any factual disagreements with anything I have written please detail them. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

11:58am Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

" 'rid the world of speed limits' campaign" Where did that come from??
" 'rid the world of speed limits' campaign" Where did that come from?? dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

12:22pm Wed 4 Jun 14

riverbend says...

This thread has never become personal... its about morals.
The law is the law however absurd it seems to the individual you must obey it or face the consequences.
If i find the speed limit in a particular location unreasonably low I bite the bullet and stick to it.
If you want to campaign against it please crack on but your 10 years of road safety study is likely to have been a complete and utter waste of time. Speed limits are there for a reason and enforcement is only there because enough people refuse to comply with them.
You have no argument and I will be wasting no more of my time getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
This thread has never become personal... its about morals. The law is the law however absurd it seems to the individual you must obey it or face the consequences. If i find the speed limit in a particular location unreasonably low I bite the bullet and stick to it. If you want to campaign against it please crack on but your 10 years of road safety study is likely to have been a complete and utter waste of time. Speed limits are there for a reason and enforcement is only there because enough people refuse to comply with them. You have no argument and I will be wasting no more of my time getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. So long, and thanks for all the fish. riverbend
  • Score: -2

12:49pm Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

There is nothing immoral about challenging bad law or bad application of the law.

You are still ignoring the evidence I have provided indicating that limits are not set consistently or sensibly thereby demonstrating that if speed limits are set for a reason, that reason is not safety.

My "argument" is supported by the majority if you check any article on the subject where the public comment and vote.
There is nothing immoral about challenging bad law or bad application of the law. You are still ignoring the evidence I have provided indicating that limits are not set consistently or sensibly thereby demonstrating that if speed limits are set for a reason, that reason is not safety. My "argument" is supported by the majority if you check any article on the subject where the public comment and vote. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

7:31pm Wed 4 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
No, speed is not 100% responsible for how accidents end, there are other factors, such as attention and anticipation, braking performance, grip (weather), not to mention probably the biggest factor, distance. It is very rare that the free speed before the situation started to develop is the same as the impact speed. An alert driver reading the road ahead at 50 as circumstances allow is likely to be safer than a drugged driver at 30 obeying the speed limit. "Moving too fast to react in time" is like saying "100 grams is too much sugar to put in a cake". It is only part of the story, the other factor is how big is the cake? Safe driving involves maintaining a safe speed AND DISTANCE combination so that you can stop within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPEED.

Yes roads are designed to standards, such as the Dorset Way and A338 were designed for 70MPH traffic, now that cars have better tyres, abs brakes,handling, etc you can be sent on a £110 course for less than 60 and be preached at for driving "dangerously fast".

And why do those who run the enforcement systems seem to need to rely on dishonesty and secrecy if it is purely about safety?
Proof for the last claim please.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]No, speed is not 100% responsible for how accidents end, there are other factors, such as attention and anticipation, braking performance, grip (weather), not to mention probably the biggest factor, distance. It is very rare that the free speed before the situation started to develop is the same as the impact speed. An alert driver reading the road ahead at 50 as circumstances allow is likely to be safer than a drugged driver at 30 obeying the speed limit. "Moving too fast to react in time" is like saying "100 grams is too much sugar to put in a cake". It is only part of the story, the other factor is how big is the cake? Safe driving involves maintaining a safe speed AND DISTANCE combination so that you can stop within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPEED. Yes roads are designed to standards, such as the Dorset Way and A338 were designed for 70MPH traffic, now that cars have better tyres, abs brakes,handling, etc you can be sent on a £110 course for less than 60 and be preached at for driving "dangerously fast". And why do those who run the enforcement systems seem to need to rely on dishonesty and secrecy if it is purely about safety?[/p][/quote]Proof for the last claim please. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Wed 4 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
One solution is to open your eyes, lift the right foot off of the right hand pedal and place it on the central pedal. Then you're within the speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.[/p][/quote]One solution is to open your eyes, lift the right foot off of the right hand pedal and place it on the central pedal. Then you're within the speed limit. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

7:38pm Wed 4 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
riverbend wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit.
Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?
Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits.

Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.
What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads?
Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster?
Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us.
Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field.
Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics.
Good luck.
I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it.

I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe



ed.org.uk/limits/Def



ault.aspx
In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right.
Actually I am a highly successful engineer and inventor and with professional safety responsibility for heavy machinery manufactured in the UK and sold around the world and therefore know exactly what professional safety work looks like here and elsewhere, and I can tell you for sure that if I did some of the things Dorset Police and the councils have done in the name of "safety" I would have been fired and possibly locked up by now.

If you disagree with anything I have written could you detail it?
Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]riverbend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]Dorsetspeed knows all of that but chooses to ignore it. His gripe is the resources put in to catching those who think that they have better control over their vehicle than they actually have and who deliberately choose to exceed the speed limit. Dorsetspeed seems to think that it is acceptable to 'moderately' exceed the speed limit. I wonder if the same view is taken of the occasional burglar who might only take a few quids worth of his stuff or a casual thug who only punches him in the mouth twice instead of 10 times?[/p][/quote]Many of those caught now have never had to worry about speed limits as they are defensive drivers who naturally drive below sensible speed limits. Yes some speed deliberately (and find it easy to do so) but many are simply caught out by absurdly low limits. Yes it is a misuse of resources but far worse, there is dishonesty and law breaking involved in speed enforcement. It will probably go over your head again but I am challenging the "law", not suggesting it's ok to break it.[/p][/quote]What is it that qualifies you to have a greater understanding of the safe speed limits on particular roads? Is it simply because you think that the absence of an obvious hazard in the road makes it safer for everyone to drive faster? Perhaps you believe that you are a better driver than the rest of us. Either way you should be lobbying for a change in speed limits by using a Traffic Regulation Order so that you can argue your case with qualified experts in the field. Or perhaps you are simply happy having a moan in the Echo as your argument to increase speed limits for increasing sake would get ripped to spreads by academics. Good luck.[/p][/quote]I am not asking for increased speed limits. I am asking for a balanced, intelligent and coordinated approach that deals with the realities (one of which is that limits too low are not well respected) and to stop the endless and ineffective speed limit reductions. For a start, the fact that I can base my judgement without being clouded by financial or political interest or seeking popularity or covering up mistakes puts me way ahead of many who are involved. I have done everything I can to communicate with the councils (as have many others) and they just ignore objection, they don't answer it. I have already demonstrated the absurdity of some of our speed limits, see above message at 4:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14 Here is more: http://www.dorsetspe ed.org.uk/limits/Def ault.aspx[/p][/quote]In other words you have no formal qualification to put forward an argument for the points you continue to raise yet you have convinced yourself that you are right.[/p][/quote]Actually I am a highly successful engineer and inventor and with professional safety responsibility for heavy machinery manufactured in the UK and sold around the world and therefore know exactly what professional safety work looks like here and elsewhere, and I can tell you for sure that if I did some of the things Dorset Police and the councils have done in the name of "safety" I would have been fired and possibly locked up by now. If you disagree with anything I have written could you detail it?[/p][/quote]Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

8:16pm Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
FrancisKing wrote:
@ DorsetSpeed.

Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills.

It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road.

Francis King
Transport Planner
No, speed is not 100% responsible for how accidents end, there are other factors, such as attention and anticipation, braking performance, grip (weather), not to mention probably the biggest factor, distance. It is very rare that the free speed before the situation started to develop is the same as the impact speed. An alert driver reading the road ahead at 50 as circumstances allow is likely to be safer than a drugged driver at 30 obeying the speed limit. "Moving too fast to react in time" is like saying "100 grams is too much sugar to put in a cake". It is only part of the story, the other factor is how big is the cake? Safe driving involves maintaining a safe speed AND DISTANCE combination so that you can stop within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPEED.

Yes roads are designed to standards, such as the Dorset Way and A338 were designed for 70MPH traffic, now that cars have better tyres, abs brakes,handling, etc you can be sent on a £110 course for less than 60 and be preached at for driving "dangerously fast".

And why do those who run the enforcement systems seem to need to rely on dishonesty and secrecy if it is purely about safety?
Proof for the last claim please.
The greed on green is an example of dishonesty and secrecy. They told us it was about casualty reduction. I asked for the data. They refused to provide it. I appealed to the information commissioner and they quite rightly insisted Dorset Police provide it. It showed that the cam was in line to make a £million a year, and also that it was at a ZERO ksi location. They were forced to change their story, they then said it was about "community concern". I asked for evidence of the community concern TWICE and they were completely unable to quantify any so that was a lie too. The cam was shut down clearly as they had been found out, they even lied about that saying that this £million cam was closed down due to cost cutting!!!!!!!!!

How can this possibly not amount to "obtaining money by deception"???

And as you must already know they have refused to detail for 3 years now the finances, the top level costs I eventually forced out of them indicating false accounting or massive waste, such as claiming the equivalent of 10 staff on 52K to deliver a simple course to 40 people.

This is just scratching the surface, there is loads more but I cannot go into too much detail as this is subject to an IPCC case which will be concluding shortly.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FrancisKing[/bold] wrote: @ DorsetSpeed. Speed plays only a small role in starting 'accidents', for example if someone takes a sharp corner too fast, and comes off the road, or they cross the centre line into oncoming traffic. But speed is responsible for 100% of how accidents end. Moving too fast to react in time - moving too fast to stop in time - and the kinetic energy left over kills. It is also worth noting that roads are designed to standards, which take speed into account. People who speed can find themselves outside the safe design parameters of the road. Francis King Transport Planner[/p][/quote]No, speed is not 100% responsible for how accidents end, there are other factors, such as attention and anticipation, braking performance, grip (weather), not to mention probably the biggest factor, distance. It is very rare that the free speed before the situation started to develop is the same as the impact speed. An alert driver reading the road ahead at 50 as circumstances allow is likely to be safer than a drugged driver at 30 obeying the speed limit. "Moving too fast to react in time" is like saying "100 grams is too much sugar to put in a cake". It is only part of the story, the other factor is how big is the cake? Safe driving involves maintaining a safe speed AND DISTANCE combination so that you can stop within the space visible and available in front of you and into which nothing is even likely to enter. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT SPEED. Yes roads are designed to standards, such as the Dorset Way and A338 were designed for 70MPH traffic, now that cars have better tyres, abs brakes,handling, etc you can be sent on a £110 course for less than 60 and be preached at for driving "dangerously fast". And why do those who run the enforcement systems seem to need to rely on dishonesty and secrecy if it is purely about safety?[/p][/quote]Proof for the last claim please.[/p][/quote]The greed on green is an example of dishonesty and secrecy. They told us it was about casualty reduction. I asked for the data. They refused to provide it. I appealed to the information commissioner and they quite rightly insisted Dorset Police provide it. It showed that the cam was in line to make a £million a year, and also that it was at a ZERO ksi location. They were forced to change their story, they then said it was about "community concern". I asked for evidence of the community concern TWICE and they were completely unable to quantify any so that was a lie too. The cam was shut down clearly as they had been found out, they even lied about that saying that this £million cam was closed down due to cost cutting!!!!!!!!! How can this possibly not amount to "obtaining money by deception"??? And as you must already know they have refused to detail for 3 years now the finances, the top level costs I eventually forced out of them indicating false accounting or massive waste, such as claiming the equivalent of 10 staff on 52K to deliver a simple course to 40 people. This is just scratching the surface, there is loads more but I cannot go into too much detail as this is subject to an IPCC case which will be concluding shortly. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

8:46pm Wed 4 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

"Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all."

Can you please detail just one thing on my website, or anything that I have written that is incorrect and why you believe it to be incorrect. It must be very frustrating to be trying to discredit me as it can't be done, I am representing the truth and the reality. This explains your childish descent into personal insult. As I say, all will be revealed when the IPCC case is concluded, even this has gone on for years as Dorset Police don't want to face the facts and the truth either. Martyn Underhill keeps delaying but I have now been promised a meeting on the 24th July, I'm sure you will hear more after that.
"Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all." Can you please detail just one thing on my website, or anything that I have written that is incorrect and why you believe it to be incorrect. It must be very frustrating to be trying to discredit me as it can't be done, I am representing the truth and the reality. This explains your childish descent into personal insult. As I say, all will be revealed when the IPCC case is concluded, even this has gone on for years as Dorset Police don't want to face the facts and the truth either. Martyn Underhill keeps delaying but I have now been promised a meeting on the 24th July, I'm sure you will hear more after that. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

2:10am Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
"Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all."

Can you please detail just one thing on my website, or anything that I have written that is incorrect and why you believe it to be incorrect. It must be very frustrating to be trying to discredit me as it can't be done, I am representing the truth and the reality. This explains your childish descent into personal insult. As I say, all will be revealed when the IPCC case is concluded, even this has gone on for years as Dorset Police don't want to face the facts and the truth either. Martyn Underhill keeps delaying but I have now been promised a meeting on the 24th July, I'm sure you will hear more after that.
"DorsetSpeed is calling for an immediate suspension of mobile speed camera operations in Dorset following the death of a motorcyclist that appears to have been partly caused by one, until all investigations into this incident have been completed, and an independent and proper investigation into effectiveness of all speed cameras, taking into account such negative effects, has been fully completed." is the second paragraph on your site. That was three years ago. Since then how many accidents have been caused by those naughty policemen having the audacity to point a camera at a person who is potentially breaking the law?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all." Can you please detail just one thing on my website, or anything that I have written that is incorrect and why you believe it to be incorrect. It must be very frustrating to be trying to discredit me as it can't be done, I am representing the truth and the reality. This explains your childish descent into personal insult. As I say, all will be revealed when the IPCC case is concluded, even this has gone on for years as Dorset Police don't want to face the facts and the truth either. Martyn Underhill keeps delaying but I have now been promised a meeting on the 24th July, I'm sure you will hear more after that.[/p][/quote]"DorsetSpeed is calling for an immediate suspension of mobile speed camera operations in Dorset following the death of a motorcyclist that appears to have been partly caused by one, until all investigations into this incident have been completed, and an independent and proper investigation into effectiveness of all speed cameras, taking into account such negative effects, has been fully completed." is the second paragraph on your site. That was three years ago. Since then how many accidents have been caused by those naughty policemen having the audacity to point a camera at a person who is potentially breaking the law? breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

7:43am Thu 5 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
"Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all."

Can you please detail just one thing on my website, or anything that I have written that is incorrect and why you believe it to be incorrect. It must be very frustrating to be trying to discredit me as it can't be done, I am representing the truth and the reality. This explains your childish descent into personal insult. As I say, all will be revealed when the IPCC case is concluded, even this has gone on for years as Dorset Police don't want to face the facts and the truth either. Martyn Underhill keeps delaying but I have now been promised a meeting on the 24th July, I'm sure you will hear more after that.
"DorsetSpeed is calling for an immediate suspension of mobile speed camera operations in Dorset following the death of a motorcyclist that appears to have been partly caused by one, until all investigations into this incident have been completed, and an independent and proper investigation into effectiveness of all speed cameras, taking into account such negative effects, has been fully completed." is the second paragraph on your site. That was three years ago. Since then how many accidents have been caused by those naughty policemen having the audacity to point a camera at a person who is potentially breaking the law?
Oh yes you are quite right, only one death three years ago, it's quite ok for Dorset Police to have swept it under the carpet and pretended it never happened. The use of speed cameras is not "naughty" if there is a credible and comprehensive statement of benefit properly accounting for the risks (and motivations such as financial) and demonstrating that the balance represents the best safety benefit / cost. Otherwise the laws apparently being broken by the police (as I have detailed above including fraud) are far more serious than the laws they claim to be enforcing.

I asked Dorset Police how many deaths had speed enforcement as a factor and they completely dodged the question by saying they had "no records"
even when the coroner's report on the death was public, absolutely shocking. Not sure why they would have done this unless there were more, another case of Dorset Police relying on lack of transparency and dishonesty.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: "Your entire web site is crap to start with, followed up by anything else you write. As I've pointed out elsewhere the initials DS stand for Dead Stupid. I see no reason to withdraw that comment. You also make claims that things will follow, that was the kind of tactics employed by Joe McCarthy amongst others. Either provide us with the evidence to back your claims or shut up once and for all." Can you please detail just one thing on my website, or anything that I have written that is incorrect and why you believe it to be incorrect. It must be very frustrating to be trying to discredit me as it can't be done, I am representing the truth and the reality. This explains your childish descent into personal insult. As I say, all will be revealed when the IPCC case is concluded, even this has gone on for years as Dorset Police don't want to face the facts and the truth either. Martyn Underhill keeps delaying but I have now been promised a meeting on the 24th July, I'm sure you will hear more after that.[/p][/quote]"DorsetSpeed is calling for an immediate suspension of mobile speed camera operations in Dorset following the death of a motorcyclist that appears to have been partly caused by one, until all investigations into this incident have been completed, and an independent and proper investigation into effectiveness of all speed cameras, taking into account such negative effects, has been fully completed." is the second paragraph on your site. That was three years ago. Since then how many accidents have been caused by those naughty policemen having the audacity to point a camera at a person who is potentially breaking the law?[/p][/quote]Oh yes you are quite right, only one death three years ago, it's quite ok for Dorset Police to have swept it under the carpet and pretended it never happened. The use of speed cameras is not "naughty" if there is a credible and comprehensive statement of benefit properly accounting for the risks (and motivations such as financial) and demonstrating that the balance represents the best safety benefit / cost. Otherwise the laws apparently being broken by the police (as I have detailed above including fraud) are far more serious than the laws they claim to be enforcing. I asked Dorset Police how many deaths had speed enforcement as a factor and they completely dodged the question by saying they had "no records" even when the coroner's report on the death was public, absolutely shocking. Not sure why they would have done this unless there were more, another case of Dorset Police relying on lack of transparency and dishonesty. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

12:22pm Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-130
33729 states 'However the IPCC has decided there was no need for a "formal referral" '. It therefore appears that for this particular incident they disagreed with you. So are all your actions since then based on this disagreement?
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-130 33729 states 'However the IPCC has decided there was no need for a "formal referral" '. It therefore appears that for this particular incident they disagreed with you. So are all your actions since then based on this disagreement? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Thu 5 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

Surely you do not believe that the IPCC is truly "independent"? The points I make are simple and valid whether the IPCC agree or not: You should not interfere with traffic without properly assessing and managing the risks, and in the event of a fatality, you should be open and transparent and seek to learn. These are a few of the most simple principles of professional safety work Dorset Police have avoided at all cost.

And no, all my actions are not based on this, such as my demonstration of fraud above which you seem to be ignoring.
Surely you do not believe that the IPCC is truly "independent"? The points I make are simple and valid whether the IPCC agree or not: You should not interfere with traffic without properly assessing and managing the risks, and in the event of a fatality, you should be open and transparent and seek to learn. These are a few of the most simple principles of professional safety work Dorset Police have avoided at all cost. And no, all my actions are not based on this, such as my demonstration of fraud above which you seem to be ignoring. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 1

6:29pm Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Surely you do not believe that the IPCC is truly "independent"? The points I make are simple and valid whether the IPCC agree or not: You should not interfere with traffic without properly assessing and managing the risks, and in the event of a fatality, you should be open and transparent and seek to learn. These are a few of the most simple principles of professional safety work Dorset Police have avoided at all cost.

And no, all my actions are not based on this, such as my demonstration of fraud above which you seem to be ignoring.
Please answer my question, dodging around it by making dodgy claims that have yet to be proven are completely unacceptable to me. If you've demonstrated fraud when did the case come to court? What was the result? Or when does the case or even cases come to court?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Surely you do not believe that the IPCC is truly "independent"? The points I make are simple and valid whether the IPCC agree or not: You should not interfere with traffic without properly assessing and managing the risks, and in the event of a fatality, you should be open and transparent and seek to learn. These are a few of the most simple principles of professional safety work Dorset Police have avoided at all cost. And no, all my actions are not based on this, such as my demonstration of fraud above which you seem to be ignoring.[/p][/quote]Please answer my question, dodging around it by making dodgy claims that have yet to be proven are completely unacceptable to me. If you've demonstrated fraud when did the case come to court? What was the result? Or when does the case or even cases come to court? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Thu 5 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

You are getting a bit irrational, you asked a question "So are all your actions since then based on this disagreement?" relating to the motorcycle death, I said the IPCC decision proves nothing one way or the other, but went back to simple safety principles, and you replied that I'm dodging my allegations of fraud which came from an unrelated earlier exchange. I repeat, I have clearly stated an example of evidence in fraud above, you seem to think that fraud can only exist once a court case is in progress or completed??

As I said (again) this is subject to an IPCC case from a complaint against Dorset Police which they ignored but the IPCC upheld, it IS in progress and I will meet with Martyn Underhill on the 24th July to discuss it. It is madness that the IPCC case has taken 2 years but I suspect that this is indicative of reluctance to face the facts and to properly answer questions the first time.

I'm sure you will hear more after the 24th July - I'm ready (have been for 10 years), for some reason Dorset Police are STILL not.
You are getting a bit irrational, you asked a question "So are all your actions since then based on this disagreement?" relating to the motorcycle death, I said the IPCC decision proves nothing one way or the other, but went back to simple safety principles, and you replied that I'm dodging my allegations of fraud which came from an unrelated earlier exchange. I repeat, I have clearly stated an example of evidence in fraud above, you seem to think that fraud can only exist once a court case is in progress or completed?? As I said (again) this is subject to an IPCC case from a complaint against Dorset Police which they ignored but the IPCC upheld, it IS in progress and I will meet with Martyn Underhill on the 24th July to discuss it. It is madness that the IPCC case has taken 2 years but I suspect that this is indicative of reluctance to face the facts and to properly answer questions the first time. I'm sure you will hear more after the 24th July - I'm ready (have been for 10 years), for some reason Dorset Police are STILL not. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

9:06pm Thu 5 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
You are getting a bit irrational, you asked a question "So are all your actions since then based on this disagreement?" relating to the motorcycle death, I said the IPCC decision proves nothing one way or the other, but went back to simple safety principles, and you replied that I'm dodging my allegations of fraud which came from an unrelated earlier exchange. I repeat, I have clearly stated an example of evidence in fraud above, you seem to think that fraud can only exist once a court case is in progress or completed??

As I said (again) this is subject to an IPCC case from a complaint against Dorset Police which they ignored but the IPCC upheld, it IS in progress and I will meet with Martyn Underhill on the 24th July to discuss it. It is madness that the IPCC case has taken 2 years but I suspect that this is indicative of reluctance to face the facts and to properly answer questions the first time.

I'm sure you will hear more after the 24th July - I'm ready (have been for 10 years), for some reason Dorset Police are STILL not.
So people have been dying on our roads for 10 years because of those naughty policemen and women who point cameras at them? Yet the bulk of the fuss is over one tragic death three years ago. Mysteriouser and mysteriouser. How do you know that Dorset Police are still not ready if the meeting isn't being held until 24th July? Have they already told you that they'll be seeking a postponement? As for fraud, I thought that the entire idea of our legal system was that something has to be proven in a court of law, as fraud is obviously a criminal offence? Or is there a let out clause which allows you, and only you, to allege fraud and everybody has to believe it because you said so?
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: You are getting a bit irrational, you asked a question "So are all your actions since then based on this disagreement?" relating to the motorcycle death, I said the IPCC decision proves nothing one way or the other, but went back to simple safety principles, and you replied that I'm dodging my allegations of fraud which came from an unrelated earlier exchange. I repeat, I have clearly stated an example of evidence in fraud above, you seem to think that fraud can only exist once a court case is in progress or completed?? As I said (again) this is subject to an IPCC case from a complaint against Dorset Police which they ignored but the IPCC upheld, it IS in progress and I will meet with Martyn Underhill on the 24th July to discuss it. It is madness that the IPCC case has taken 2 years but I suspect that this is indicative of reluctance to face the facts and to properly answer questions the first time. I'm sure you will hear more after the 24th July - I'm ready (have been for 10 years), for some reason Dorset Police are STILL not.[/p][/quote]So people have been dying on our roads for 10 years because of those naughty policemen and women who point cameras at them? Yet the bulk of the fuss is over one tragic death three years ago. Mysteriouser and mysteriouser. How do you know that Dorset Police are still not ready if the meeting isn't being held until 24th July? Have they already told you that they'll be seeking a postponement? As for fraud, I thought that the entire idea of our legal system was that something has to be proven in a court of law, as fraud is obviously a criminal offence? Or is there a let out clause which allows you, and only you, to allege fraud and everybody has to believe it because you said so? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Thu 5 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

Possibly more people have been dying with enforcement as a factor, unfortunately we cannot know as when asked, Dorset Police dodged the question, I wonder why. Certainly, the public have been at increased risk on the roads due to the obsession of Dorset Police to make money from the public instead of doing their best to reduce road casualties. No, the death (and how it was handled) is just one of many indications of the dangers of the misguided objectives of Dorset Police but in itself is an indication of other offences than fraud, such as misconduct, incompetence and breach of duty of care . MU has said that, after 10 years of my investigations, 2 years of IPCC, 1 1/2 of his and a year of "independent" examination by the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire police, he still does not have the answers to the issues I have raised. Therefore Dorset Police are still not ready. I have not said that Dorset Police have been found guilty of fraud, I have simply provided unmistakable evidence of it. I wish I could tell you more but I cannot because of the stalling / delaying / secrecy of Dorset Police.
Possibly more people have been dying with enforcement as a factor, unfortunately we cannot know as when asked, Dorset Police dodged the question, I wonder why. Certainly, the public have been at increased risk on the roads due to the obsession of Dorset Police to make money from the public instead of doing their best to reduce road casualties. No, the death (and how it was handled) is just one of many indications of the dangers of the misguided objectives of Dorset Police but in itself is an indication of other offences than fraud, such as misconduct, incompetence and breach of duty of care . MU has said that, after 10 years of my investigations, 2 years of IPCC, 1 1/2 of his and a year of "independent" examination by the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire police, he still does not have the answers to the issues I have raised. Therefore Dorset Police are still not ready. I have not said that Dorset Police have been found guilty of fraud, I have simply provided unmistakable evidence of it. I wish I could tell you more but I cannot because of the stalling / delaying / secrecy of Dorset Police. dorsetspeed
  • Score: -1

9:38pm Fri 6 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

dorsetspeed wrote:
Possibly more people have been dying with enforcement as a factor, unfortunately we cannot know as when asked, Dorset Police dodged the question, I wonder why. Certainly, the public have been at increased risk on the roads due to the obsession of Dorset Police to make money from the public instead of doing their best to reduce road casualties. No, the death (and how it was handled) is just one of many indications of the dangers of the misguided objectives of Dorset Police but in itself is an indication of other offences than fraud, such as misconduct, incompetence and breach of duty of care . MU has said that, after 10 years of my investigations, 2 years of IPCC, 1 1/2 of his and a year of "independent" examination by the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire police, he still does not have the answers to the issues I have raised. Therefore Dorset Police are still not ready. I have not said that Dorset Police have been found guilty of fraud, I have simply provided unmistakable evidence of it. I wish I could tell you more but I cannot because of the stalling / delaying / secrecy of Dorset Police.
How can you have been investigating this for ten years when the one fatal accident only occurred three years ago? What has the Mothers Union got to do with it? I'll repeat since you appear so dumb that you don't understand the simplest of concepts. Fraud has to be proven in a criminal court of law. It strikes me that here this cannot possibly happen because you've been stupid enough to omit the word "alleged" every time you mention it. Any semi-decent barrister would tear you to pieces over this.
[quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Possibly more people have been dying with enforcement as a factor, unfortunately we cannot know as when asked, Dorset Police dodged the question, I wonder why. Certainly, the public have been at increased risk on the roads due to the obsession of Dorset Police to make money from the public instead of doing their best to reduce road casualties. No, the death (and how it was handled) is just one of many indications of the dangers of the misguided objectives of Dorset Police but in itself is an indication of other offences than fraud, such as misconduct, incompetence and breach of duty of care . MU has said that, after 10 years of my investigations, 2 years of IPCC, 1 1/2 of his and a year of "independent" examination by the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire police, he still does not have the answers to the issues I have raised. Therefore Dorset Police are still not ready. I have not said that Dorset Police have been found guilty of fraud, I have simply provided unmistakable evidence of it. I wish I could tell you more but I cannot because of the stalling / delaying / secrecy of Dorset Police.[/p][/quote]How can you have been investigating this for ten years when the one fatal accident only occurred three years ago? What has the Mothers Union got to do with it? I'll repeat since you appear so dumb that you don't understand the simplest of concepts. Fraud has to be proven in a criminal court of law. It strikes me that here this cannot possibly happen because you've been stupid enough to omit the word "alleged" every time you mention it. Any semi-decent barrister would tear you to pieces over this. breamoreboy
  • Score: -1

12:03am Sat 7 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

breamoreboy wrote:
dorsetspeed wrote:
Possibly more people have been dying with enforcement as a factor, unfortunately we cannot know as when asked, Dorset Police dodged the question, I wonder why. Certainly, the public have been at increased risk on the roads due to the obsession of Dorset Police to make money from the public instead of doing their best to reduce road casualties. No, the death (and how it was handled) is just one of many indications of the dangers of the misguided objectives of Dorset Police but in itself is an indication of other offences than fraud, such as misconduct, incompetence and breach of duty of care . MU has said that, after 10 years of my investigations, 2 years of IPCC, 1 1/2 of his and a year of "independent" examination by the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire police, he still does not have the answers to the issues I have raised. Therefore Dorset Police are still not ready. I have not said that Dorset Police have been found guilty of fraud, I have simply provided unmistakable evidence of it. I wish I could tell you more but I cannot because of the stalling / delaying / secrecy of Dorset Police.
How can you have been investigating this for ten years when the one fatal accident only occurred three years ago? What has the Mothers Union got to do with it? I'll repeat since you appear so dumb that you don't understand the simplest of concepts. Fraud has to be proven in a criminal court of law. It strikes me that here this cannot possibly happen because you've been stupid enough to omit the word "alleged" every time you mention it. Any semi-decent barrister would tear you to pieces over this.
The immoral. illegal, and dangerous activities of Dorset Police were obviously apparent long before they unsurprisingly ultimately resulted in a death. By MU I obviously meant Martyn Underhill, the PCC for Dorset. I'll repeat this as it seems necessary (I will not childishly call you "dumb"), I have provided evidence of fraud, I have not stated that Dorset Police have been fraudulent. I would absolutely welcome any challenge, from barristers or anyone, as my position is based on the simple truth. It is not surprising that even after 10 years, there has not only been no credible challenge, but here has been absolutely no meaningful communication from Dorset Police, or anyone, in response to my allegations.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dorsetspeed[/bold] wrote: Possibly more people have been dying with enforcement as a factor, unfortunately we cannot know as when asked, Dorset Police dodged the question, I wonder why. Certainly, the public have been at increased risk on the roads due to the obsession of Dorset Police to make money from the public instead of doing their best to reduce road casualties. No, the death (and how it was handled) is just one of many indications of the dangers of the misguided objectives of Dorset Police but in itself is an indication of other offences than fraud, such as misconduct, incompetence and breach of duty of care . MU has said that, after 10 years of my investigations, 2 years of IPCC, 1 1/2 of his and a year of "independent" examination by the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire police, he still does not have the answers to the issues I have raised. Therefore Dorset Police are still not ready. I have not said that Dorset Police have been found guilty of fraud, I have simply provided unmistakable evidence of it. I wish I could tell you more but I cannot because of the stalling / delaying / secrecy of Dorset Police.[/p][/quote]How can you have been investigating this for ten years when the one fatal accident only occurred three years ago? What has the Mothers Union got to do with it? I'll repeat since you appear so dumb that you don't understand the simplest of concepts. Fraud has to be proven in a criminal court of law. It strikes me that here this cannot possibly happen because you've been stupid enough to omit the word "alleged" every time you mention it. Any semi-decent barrister would tear you to pieces over this.[/p][/quote]The immoral. illegal, and dangerous activities of Dorset Police were obviously apparent long before they unsurprisingly ultimately resulted in a death. By MU I obviously meant Martyn Underhill, the PCC for Dorset. I'll repeat this as it seems necessary (I will not childishly call you "dumb"), I have provided evidence of fraud, I have not stated that Dorset Police have been fraudulent. I would absolutely welcome any challenge, from barristers or anyone, as my position is based on the simple truth. It is not surprising that even after 10 years, there has not only been no credible challenge, but here has been absolutely no meaningful communication from Dorset Police, or anyone, in response to my allegations. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

12:53am Sat 7 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

Well you're still talking crap from where I sit. I just hope that the original alleged fraud ten years ago is not expired under our laws, otherwise you may well find that you're wasting your time, as nothing that happened after that time is, at least to my knowledge, admissable in court. However I might have to bow to your clearly superior knowledge as self appointed road safety expert, inventor, patent holder and legal expert.

Just to be on the safe side I suggest that you take a tissue with you on 24th July, just in case you have to wipe any egg off of your face.
Well you're still talking crap from where I sit. I just hope that the original alleged fraud ten years ago is not expired under our laws, otherwise you may well find that you're wasting your time, as nothing that happened after that time is, at least to my knowledge, admissable in court. However I might have to bow to your clearly superior knowledge as self appointed road safety expert, inventor, patent holder and legal expert. Just to be on the safe side I suggest that you take a tissue with you on 24th July, just in case you have to wipe any egg off of your face. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:47am Sat 7 Jun 14

dorsetspeed says...

I am purely asking for honesty and transparency, it is the lack of this that is the main issue, honesty and transparency will reveal the truth, whatever it is, and it is simply the truth I am looking for. I have repeated many times that if Dorset Police were to simply answer the questions, and demonstrate financial and operational integrity, and effectiveness in their road safety enforcement activities, I will publicly apologise, announce my total support for Dorset Police and no one will ever hear from me again on the subject, and I stand by that. Hasn't made the slightest difference, for 10 years and with a very patient start, Dorset Police have not responded in any way whatsoever to a single one of the concerns.

There is clearly no way everything will be sorted out on the 24th July, for a start, that will be the first time I will be allowed access to the (400 page I have been told) report from the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire Police after their investigations for a year, which MU has already said has not answered all the issues, hence the last additional further delay.
I am purely asking for honesty and transparency, it is the lack of this that is the main issue, honesty and transparency will reveal the truth, whatever it is, and it is simply the truth I am looking for. I have repeated many times that if Dorset Police were to simply answer the questions, and demonstrate financial and operational integrity, and effectiveness in their road safety enforcement activities, I will publicly apologise, announce my total support for Dorset Police and no one will ever hear from me again on the subject, and I stand by that. Hasn't made the slightest difference, for 10 years and with a very patient start, Dorset Police have not responded in any way whatsoever to a single one of the concerns. There is clearly no way everything will be sorted out on the 24th July, for a start, that will be the first time I will be allowed access to the (400 page I have been told) report from the anti-corruption unit of Hampshire Police after their investigations for a year, which MU has already said has not answered all the issues, hence the last additional further delay. dorsetspeed
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree