Is this the end for static speed camera funding in Bournemouth? (From Thisisdorset)

“Police officers with handheld guns can breathalyse drivers, they can stop people they suspect might not have tax or insurance, they can stop someone for tailgating. There are so many benefits.”

Hallelujah! At last, some sense being spoken. This is how the roads SHOULD be policed. Speed cameras can't detect any of the above offences.

I'd rather have police than cameras for the reasons Jim lists above, but I've never personally had any problems whatsover with speed cameras, then maybe that's because I don't speed - always seemed a "no-brainer" way not to get fined to me but then all the "scamera" whingers actually want to be able to speed and ironically prove the need for enforcement/cameras by the fact that they are the ones too thick not to end up being caught!

About time - Speed cameras were never just about reducing people's speed.

Educating young people in school about the dangers of driving would start to address atitudes to speed - it should be about preventing and about changing behaviour rather than catching and punishing.

After all we want people to drive carefully and within the speed limit rather than catch them if they speed.

I saw this morning that there was a shunt on the Richmond Hill slip road going eastbound with an ambulance in attendance.
Hope no-one was seriously injured.
40mph limit not working then?
Poor road layout to blame instead?

I think that this is great news - as already mentioned, having the Police actually out there will allow many more driving offences to be addressed, not just speed.

Lets hope that this is addressed in the same manner for Poole. More police, and less "government cash machines"!

Spot on - People at the Council talking sense for a change!

jon says:
"More police, and less "government cash machines"!
They are only cash machines if you speed! let me think, sounds like a simple way of avoiding paying any cash to the govt. - i know, how about sticking to the speed limit! What a revolutionary idea!
The way people moan anyone would think the cameras fine you every time you drive past, unless you are confusing them with the ones in London- they are for the congestion charge! You as a law abiding and safe driver who sticks to the maxium speed limits have nothing to fear jon....oh? you don't stick to the speed limits? well in that case stop moaning if you get caught!...

“The only major change has been the intervention of safety cameras."

What breathtaking arrogance from Mr Garrett. All those road calming systems, improved vehicle design, improved hospital procedures, the desire of the majority of drivers to play their part, all dismissed by Mr Garrett in favour of his toys.

A review of accident data by independent, and hopefully expert, people is a great recomendation.

And for those saying, stick to the speed limits, please realise that this is about accidents and not speed. Look at the actual accident data in detail and you will see it only rarely involves speed in excess of the prevailing limit.

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
Spot on - People at the Council talking sense for a change!

There only talking like this because of the withdraw of the funding from central government. If, God forbid, councils were allowed to keep the revenue from speed enforcement the whole Borough would be swamped by cameras of all types.
How does this report stack up with the claim on the SCP web site that the majority of the public support their operations?

Cllr Mark Anderson, who chaired the task and finish group that researched the issue, said: “Let’s have a policeman on the road with a gun like we used to instead of having someone sat in a van watching the screen and saying ‘got you.’ “Police officers with handheld guns can breathalyse drivers, they can stop people they suspect might not have tax or insurance, they can stop someone for tailgating. There are so many benefits.”
...
It's like the feel of the sun on your face after a long winter! ..ok, perhaps not quite that good, but you get the drift.
It's taken a long time to break down the political wall of fear surounding the use and subsequent misuse of the speed camera regime by the fear mongering empire builders who, even now, inspite of their increasing impotence, continue to wage their war of words.
To all those who're still saying speeding is wrong, yes! we know, we've always known and we're sick of you using it as an excuse to browbeat councillors into making ill conceived decisions about road safety policy, because many of the offences you've chosen to neglect and ignore during your obsession with speed are just as wrong and in many cases much worse and now, at least, we're going to start doing something about it again, so get over it!
Well done Cllr Anderson.

Speed cameras have always been a sauce of causing accidents...
Locals know where they are. Strangers often see them at the last moment, braking violently, causing the driver behind to do the same.

The council have always known this, it's not rocket science. But the lure of making money from these devices is more impotrant to them

Absolutely agree with everything in this article. Though I am slightly dubious about the "vans at night" inclusion, I'm assuming this will mean there will still be men-in-vans during the day?

Still, on the whole, seems like someone is finally recognising what the public wants and talking some sense.

rayc wrote:
“The only major change has been the intervention of safety cameras." What breathtaking arrogance from Mr Garrett. All those road calming systems, improved vehicle design, improved hospital procedures, the desire of the majority of drivers to play their part, all dismissed by Mr Garrett in favour of his toys.

Power corrupts

Yawn ZZZZ not this again,i guess the peeps at the echo are bored and want to stir up a hornets nest of those for and against,or they have just run out of news.

GB916 wrote:
Yawn ZZZZ not this again,i guess the peeps at the echo are bored and want to stir up a hornets nest of those for and against,or they have just run out of news.

It's a hot topic for comments. Which means there is interest. Also, more cynically, echo gets revenue from ads displayed on web site. So there is incentive to repeat stories that generate heat. Which probably is an issue if you think about it?

It has to be said I find it more than a little suspicious that after all these years they only put a set of new cameras at a school when the partnerships are facing the threat of closure. For some mysterious reason they decide to trial it here and now and not on a busy carriage way where there'd be a much higher volume of traffic meaning the results would be much more comprehensive and informative.
It smacks of putting a military base right in the middle of a civilian village in an attempt to prevent attack, something of a desperate measure to cling to their jobs and play the politics of fear card once again exploiting children, whom, up to now, were left to fend for themselves.
It seems that these partnerships will stop at nothing to maintain their grasp, even resorting to lying to the media about their results, as was the case disclosed by the local paper in Oxfordshire in the last couple of weeks.
The practices of these partnerships are becoming transparant and abhorrant and it will be a good day when they're finally disbanded and all camera misuse is outlawed, as the Americans are doing, right now!

stuartc73 wrote:
I saw this morning that there was a shunt on the Richmond Hill slip road going eastbound with an ambulance in attendance.
Hope no-one was seriously injured.
40mph limit not working then?
Poor road layout to blame instead?

It is a short slip road, which is exactly why the speed limit needs to be lower than it might otherwise be… Unless they can lengthen the slip road, but I don't think that would be possible now (?).

Well done dorsetspeed! (I'm sure you won't be shy in taking the credit for this.) It's thanks to people like you that people like me will have the freedom to speed even more.
---
Now you've seen off the cameras, please can you start a campaign to ban the breathalyser? We drink-drivers are even more stigmatised than speeders. Why should honest, law-abiding folk such as myself be prosecuted for such a minor offence? The police should concentrate on catching the real criminals.

tonyrichards:"Speed cameras have always been a sauce of causing accidents...
Locals know where they are. Strangers often see them at the last moment, braking violently, causing the driver behind to do the same"
rather proves the need for speed enforcement then , if people weren't speeding in the first place then why would they have to brake violently, as you put it? And of course as you always keep a safe distance from the car in front , even sudden braking shouldn't cause an accident should it?
the pathetic reasons people come up with because they hate having to drive with care and consideration !

"There are currently no time over distance cameras in the county – the one currently being trialled on Springdale Road, Broadstone is being funded by Siemens".
...
A bit like a drug dealer handing out free samples?
These manufacturers are terrified, the world and his wife have bought a GPS and subsequently the camera revenue has plummeted, as the now impotent and antiquated camera project is so easily outsmarted. Meaning there's no financial incentive for councillors to look the other way at their pitiful results.
So much fuss about the approaching carnage in Swindon ..that never happened, whole Countys in the UK and even whole States of America switching them off and abandoning this legacy from the last century must leave manufacturers shareholders having cold sweats in the realisation that their lucrative little con is almost over.
Because make no mistake, behind the carefully crafted fear mongering non sense of the camera regime, lays the true reason. Unscrupulus manufacturers and their snake oil salesman techniques attempting to maintain profit margins as there old cameras go out of manufacture and their intent to sell the gulible a whole new crop of worthless wares.
When you realise the depth of this, you realise just how disgusting it is.

insight- you refer to "outsmarting" cameras , do you not agree with speed limits then? whether or not you think they are about revenue is a smokescreen, state your true view- do you think each driver should be left to make the decision over what is a safe speed to drive at? or are national set limits better?

McPricker wrote:
Well done dorsetspeed! (I'm sure you won't be shy in taking the credit for this.) It's thanks to people like you that people like me will have the freedom to speed even more. --- Now you've seen off the cameras, please can you start a campaign to ban the breathalyser? We drink-drivers are even more stigmatised than speeders. Why should honest, law-abiding folk such as myself be prosecuted for such a minor offence? The police should concentrate on catching the real criminals.

Most of us would say you drink drivers have had a free run during the camera era and it's about time targetting you became a priority again.
Remember, a drunk behind the wheel isn't just for christmas, these idiots do it all year round!

The report appears to retain support for mobile cameras during the daytime, which I fully support. So it doesn't completely signal the end of the DCSP. Still with a smaller unit, it won't be able to defend paying the salaries of it's senior management.

Insight wrote:

McPricker wrote:
Well done dorsetspeed! (I'm sure you won't be shy in taking the credit for this.) It's thanks to people like you that people like me will have the freedom to speed even more. --- Now you've seen off the cameras, please can you start a campaign to ban the breathalyser? We drink-drivers are even more stigmatised than speeders. Why should honest, law-abiding folk such as myself be prosecuted for such a minor offence? The police should concentrate on catching the real criminals.

Most of us would say you drink drivers have had a free run during the camera era and it's about time targetting you became a priority again.
Remember, a drunk behind the wheel isn't just for christmas, these idiots do it all year round!

As I said, it's no different from speeding really (which you're clearly not too bothered about). Please explain why you think my reaction times theory is wrong.

I don't condone speeding, and I don't intentionally do it (much less so now i have a car with cruise control thank god!), but as I have found out, it is so easy to let the speed creep up a few mph over the limit as one keeps eyes on the road, traffic and pedestrians etc.. then *flash*. Inadvertantly doing 34 in a 30 but driving vigilantly is much less dangerous than drink driving, so please don't try to compare the two as McPricker tries to do above.

uvox44 wrote:
insight- you refer to "outsmarting" cameras , do you not agree with speed limits then? whether or not you think they are about revenue is a smokescreen, state your true view- do you think each driver should be left to make the decision over what is a safe speed to drive at? or are national set limits better?

Of course I agree with speed limits, you appear to have become confused by the speed camera propaganda that by definition states everyone who disagree's with 'speed cameras' must be a dangerous right wing naughty speeder.
In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find anywhere where I've challenged the actual 'speed limit' accept where a limit has been reduced at a site with no history of accidents to bulk up a failing catch rate.
The law isn't and has never been in question, just the incompetence and now irrelevance of an out of date method of enforcement that simply does not work.
If anything speed limits should be simplified so that you're not going in and out of 30 and 40 limits allowing this misuse of cameras to flourish.
In my opinion, there should probably be only three limits 30 urban, 50 non urban and 70 motorway with hazards clearly marked to avoid confusion over signage which has been causing so many people to be criminalised.

Jim_Springbourne wrote:
“Police officers with handheld guns can breathalyse drivers, they can stop people they suspect might not have tax or insurance, they can stop someone for tailgating. There are so many benefits.” Hallelujah! At last, some sense being spoken. This is how the roads SHOULD be policed. Speed cameras can't detect any of the above offences.

Common sense seems to be creeping in.....lets hope it continues!......

so insight , if you agree with speed limits, and so presumably therefore always stick to them , why is there a need to , to use YOUR word, "outsmart" the cameras? if you aren't speeding surely by default the cameras are then "outsmarted"? over this I am confused...

One other thing, when it comes to all these so called 'safe speed' organisations, I'm of the opinion that many of them, (with appologies to those who're obviously for real), are little more than the tamed puppets of the partnerships, pantomime villains always mysteriously on hand at exactly the right time as a partnership news article goes to press to give a quote to the media extolling the virtue of driving like an idiot and by design being deliberately provocative whipping up the gulible public (much as mcpricker is trying to do).
It's all a snake oil confidence trick perpetrated by the manufacturers of these devices that are so close to being exterminated.

uvox44 wrote:
so insight , if you agree with speed limits, and so presumably therefore always stick to them , why is there a need to , to use YOUR word, "outsmart" the cameras? if you aren't speeding surely by default the cameras are then "outsmarted"? over this I am confused...

Oh dear, yes, I obey speed limits, I understand why they're there and I've never found them a hinderance and have maintained a clean license.
Saddly, many people don't have the same view as I do and the simple purchase of a cheap dashboard device allows them to 'outsmart' the now obsolete cameras and continue to drive like an idiot and usually the only time these people become a statistic is when their car is removed from a tree or a bus shelter.
Are you still confused?

Insight wrote:

uvox44 wrote: so insight , if you agree with speed limits, and so presumably therefore always stick to them , why is there a need to , to use YOUR word, "outsmart" the cameras? if you aren't speeding surely by default the cameras are then "outsmarted"? over this I am confused...

Oh dear, yes, I obey speed limits, I understand why they're there and I've never found them a hinderance and have maintained a clean license. Saddly, many people don't have the same view as I do and the simple purchase of a cheap dashboard device allows them to 'outsmart' the now obsolete cameras and continue to drive like an idiot and usually the only time these people become a statistic is when their car is removed from a tree or a bus shelter. Are you still confused?

Perhaps we need to install more tree's and bus shelters, statistics up and down the country show they're much more effective at 'stopping' dangerous driving than any speed camera ever has been!

rayc wrote:
“The only major change has been the intervention of safety cameras."

What breathtaking arrogance from Mr Garrett. All those road calming systems, improved vehicle design, improved hospital procedures, the desire of the majority of drivers to play their part, all dismissed by Mr Garrett in favour of his toys.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I doubt there's an A road in Dorset which hasn't had major safety improvements over the last eight years, be it improved lane marking, junction redesign, cycle lanes etc. To say the only thing that's changed are speed cameras is incredibly arrogant and in fact a basic lie, if this is the stat he uses to justify his role then it's obviously a role not needed anymore.
In fact the only major route I can think of that's crying out for junction redesign is the Wessex Way, where the only improvement has been the cycle lanes at Castle Lane flyover, which has saved more lives then the speed cameras and 40 mph speed limit will ever do.

The original idea of the speed camera was to fix an accident black spot by re-engineering the site, resurfacing, refurbishment of signs, white lines and lights effectively removing the problem that caused the site to become an accident black spot in the first place and only then install a speed camera to claw back some of the expenditure.
Unfortunately the arrival of GPS has seen the revenue plummet below the operating costs of the partnerships that run them and they've become a very expensive on-cost, hence the closures.
Because the reality is, they don't do anything about road safety, never have and never will and it is only the gullibility of those who believe all the disingenuous made up nonsense about their reason for existence that has left our roads so inadequately policed today with over 20% of our traffic police removed and with some areas seeing a reduction in police patrols of up to 80% which even the previous government condemned and warned local authority not to rely on speed cameras and to “Continue to police the roads properly”.

Is it just me or does someone like the sound of his own voice? And yet he still won't (or can't) answer my question.

Insight wrote:
The original idea of the speed camera was to fix an accident black spot by re-engineering the site, resurfacing, refurbishment of signs, white lines and lights effectively removing the problem that caused the site to become an accident black spot in the first place and only then install a speed camera to claw back some of the expenditure. Unfortunately the arrival of GPS has seen the revenue plummet below the operating costs of the partnerships that run them and they've become a very expensive on-cost, hence the closures. Because the reality is, they don't do anything about road safety, never have and never will and it is only the gullibility of those who believe all the disingenuous made up nonsense about their reason for existence that has left our roads so inadequately policed today with over 20% of our traffic police removed and with some areas seeing a reduction in police patrols of up to 80% which even the previous government condemned and warned local authority not to rely on speed cameras and to “Continue to police the roads properly”.

We can even see this in operation today, if we look at the A31 ..what's the first order of business? ...install a speed camera?, ...no, of course not, it's to resurface the road and fix the problem.

Jeez, he even replies to his own comments now! As they say, empty vessels make the most noise.

McPricker wrote:
Is it just me or does someone like the sound of his own voice? And yet he still won't (or can't) answer my question.

You claim to be a drink driver mcpricker and I'd suggest that you're already puddled, indicative by your argumentative juvanille comments, all I have to say to you is that it's a good job Councillor Anderson has seen sense and the police will be back on the roads to deal with you.

The complete irony of this story is that in almost ANY other scenario where a machine could record misdeeds, we would all be campaigning for the machine to be installed so that real policemen can get on with other things that cannot be detected by machine. And here we are asking for the machines to be replaced by real people.

As a principle, I can't see any problem with using a camera - which COULD also record numberplates and cheking tax and insurance - for detecting speed offences.

Insight wrote:

McPricker wrote:
Is it just me or does someone like the sound of his own voice? And yet he still won't (or can't) answer my question.

You claim to be a drink driver mcpricker and I'd suggest that you're already puddled, indicative by your argumentative juvanille comments, all I have to say to you is that it's a good job Councillor Anderson has seen sense and the police will be back on the roads to deal with you.

Can't answer the question then? Just be honest about it rather than resort to juvenile (spell it right) threats and insults.

Wintonian wrote:
The complete irony of this story is that in almost ANY other scenario where a machine could record misdeeds, we would all be campaigning for the machine to be installed so that real policemen can get on with other things that cannot be detected by machine. And here we are asking for the machines to be replaced by real people. As a principle, I can't see any problem with using a camera - which COULD also record numberplates and cheking tax and insurance - for detecting speed offences.

The real irony is that people are still championing this legacy from the last century. When mounting modern advanced technology in 'real' police vehicles, putting 'real' police back in the right place to deal with all the offences cameras don't deal with is so much cheaper. Now that cameras have been outlawed in many American states that's what they're doing to great effect. Why does the UK have to continue to dwell in the dark ages while continuing an argument that hasn't been relevant since the late 1990's?
These advances aren't science fixtion from the future, several counties are deploying them now and if the truth be told the expense of the obsolete camera concept is nothing more than in the way.

13 comments and counting… Give someone else a chance, you road hog!

Alright you two, keep it civil. Anymore of this and we'll have you both in clink (etc etc, cont p97)

10 PRINT "Speed cameras bad, ramble ramble ramble, waste of money, ramble ramble ramble, big con, ramble ramble ramble, need more police patrols, ramble ramble ramble, aren't I clever, ramble ramble ramble, I know it all I do, ramble ramble ramble…"
20 GO TO 10

RUN

Sam Shepherd wrote:
Alright you two, keep it civil. Anymore of this and we'll have you both in clink (etc etc, cont p97)

Fine, but it's utterly wrong when one person is utterly determined to hog the comments and go on and on and on. He says the same thing every time anyhow, like a record with the needle stuck. It's just so tedious for other users having to wade through his verbal diarrhoea just to get to an interesting comment.

PokesdownMark wrote:

GB916 wrote:
Yawn ZZZZ not this again,i guess the peeps at the echo are bored and want to stir up a hornets nest of those for and against,or they have just run out of news.

It's a hot topic for comments. Which means there is interest. Also, more cynically, echo gets revenue from ads displayed on web site. So there is incentive to repeat stories that generate heat. Which probably is an issue if you think about it?

adblock

McPricker wrote:

Sam Shepherd wrote: Alright you two, keep it civil. Anymore of this and we'll have you both in clink (etc etc, cont p97)

Fine, but it's utterly wrong when one person is utterly determined to hog the comments and go on and on and on. He says the same thing every time anyhow, like a record with the needle stuck. It's just so tedious for other users having to wade through his verbal diarrhoea just to get to an interesting comment.

I just find you amusing McPricker, computer programme as suggested by Norman Mead?, know it all, as suggested by Rally?, verbal diarrhoea as sited by McVicar?
Careful Mr Garret, your clones are showing and I think that's all I need to say on the irrelevance of this subject to the article.

McPricker wrote:
Well done dorsetspeed! (I'm sure you won't be shy in taking the credit for this.) It's thanks to people like you that people like me will have the freedom to speed even more.
---
Now you've seen off the cameras, please can you start a campaign to ban the breathalyser? We drink-drivers are even more stigmatised than speeders. Why should honest, law-abiding folk such as myself be prosecuted for such a minor offence? The police should concentrate on catching the real criminals.

Not very cleaver are you - there is a big difference between speeding and drink driving. That is why the two offences have a different classification and the penalties are markedly different.

There is however no excuse for either.

I'm sure that drivers that break the law will continue to be targeted.

Insight wrote:

McPricker wrote:

Sam Shepherd wrote: Alright you two, keep it civil. Anymore of this and we'll have you both in clink (etc etc, cont p97)

Fine, but it's utterly wrong when one person is utterly determined to hog the comments and go on and on and on. He says the same thing every time anyhow, like a record with the needle stuck. It's just so tedious for other users having to wade through his verbal diarrhoea just to get to an interesting comment.

I just find you amusing McPricker, computer programme as suggested by Norman Mead?, know it all, as suggested by Rally?, verbal diarrhoea as sited by McVicar?
Careful Mr Garret, your clones are showing and I think that's all I need to say on the irrelevance of this subject to the article.

Well, we did ask nicely. Consider yourselves on the naughty step. Accounts suspended.

West Howe Sean wrote:

McPricker wrote:
Well done dorsetspeed! (I'm sure you won't be shy in taking the credit for this.) It's thanks to people like you that people like me will have the freedom to speed even more.
---
Now you've seen off the cameras, please can you start a campaign to ban the breathalyser? We drink-drivers are even more stigmatised than speeders. Why should honest, law-abiding folk such as myself be prosecuted for such a minor offence? The police should concentrate on catching the real criminals.

Not very cleaver are you - there is a big difference between speeding and drink driving. That is why the two offences have a different classification and the penalties are markedly different.

There is however no excuse for either.

I'm sure that drivers that break the law will continue to be targeted.

To be fair, I see what he may be trying to get at: that higher speeds require faster reaction times, while alcohol lowers your reaction times. So that being slightly inebriated (possibly within the legal limit - I take it you don't been paralytic, McPricker!) is the equivalent - in reaction times at least - of going too fast. An interesting argument, though not one I'm sure I agree with. What baffles me is that speeding isn't treated by most as being antisocial and completely unacceptable, as is the case with drink-driving.

Cllr Mark Anderson, who chaired the task and finish group that researched the issue, said: “Let’s have a policeman on the road with a gun like we used to instead of having someone sat in a van watching the screen and saying ‘got you.’

“Police officers with handheld guns can breathalyse drivers, they can stop people they suspect might not have tax or insurance, they can stop someone for tailgating. There are so many benefits.”

Ther main reason given by the aithorities when introducing cameras was that it would free up Traffic Officers to concentrate on other traffic infringements. What happened? Oh! I remember now they disbanded most of the dedicated Traffic Departments . You cannot trust a word they say.

uvox44 wrote:
tonyrichards:"Speed cameras have always been a sauce of causing accidents... Locals know where they are. Strangers often see them at the last moment, braking violently, causing the driver behind to do the same" rather proves the need for speed enforcement then , if people weren't speeding in the first place then why would they have to brake violently, as you put it? And of course as you always keep a safe distance from the car in front , even sudden braking shouldn't cause an accident should it? the pathetic reasons people come up with because they hate having to drive with care and consideration !

People "brake violently" at the last moment even when they are not speeding.
.
Clearly if you were travelling slowly and well below the speed limit you wouldn't need to brake at the last minute, but if you thought you were close to the limit you probably would, 'just in case.' It's just human nature.
.
You shouldn't be driving so close to the person in front that this poses a threat.

Wintonian wrote:
The complete irony of this story is that in almost ANY other scenario where a machine could record misdeeds, we would all be campaigning for the machine to be installed so that real policemen can get on with other things that cannot be detected by machine. And here we are asking for the machines to be replaced by real people. As a principle, I can't see any problem with using a camera - which COULD also record numberplates and cheking tax and insurance - for detecting speed offences.

That's a very thought provoking comment. Can you think of any example that is analogous to a speed camera? Where almost all infractions do not lead to damage or injury? But a tiny number might to some extent contribute?

What if I could think of a machine that the camera partnerships could have started to use which would have had a far greater impact (I think) on accident stats? Well I can... tailgate cameras. Germany has had these for years. Why not here? Why did the partnerships not bring these in? Now there is a question!

The Liberal wrote:

West Howe Sean wrote:

McPricker wrote: Well done dorsetspeed! (I'm sure you won't be shy in taking the credit for this.) It's thanks to people like you that people like me will have the freedom to speed even more. --- Now you've seen off the cameras, please can you start a campaign to ban the breathalyser? We drink-drivers are even more stigmatised than speeders. Why should honest, law-abiding folk such as myself be prosecuted for such a minor offence? The police should concentrate on catching the real criminals.

Not very cleaver are you - there is a big difference between speeding and drink driving. That is why the two offences have a different classification and the penalties are markedly different. There is however no excuse for either. I'm sure that drivers that break the law will continue to be targeted.

To be fair, I see what he may be trying to get at: that higher speeds require faster reaction times, while alcohol lowers your reaction times. So that being slightly inebriated (possibly within the legal limit - I take it you don't been paralytic, McPricker!) is the equivalent - in reaction times at least - of going too fast. An interesting argument, though not one I'm sure I agree with. What baffles me is that speeding isn't treated by most as being antisocial and completely unacceptable, as is the case with drink-driving.

Speeding isn't treated by most as being anti social because the enforcement has been petty. Drivers can see that driving under the influence of drink is dangerous but cannot relate dangerous to the way cameras are sited and operated.
In France every camera has a warning sign proceeding it and the reason it is there is quite clear. If there is a sign then there is a camera, they want drivers to slow down, they are operated by the Gendarmerie with no civilain interference. They are mounted on the verge at waist height and they very rarely get vandalised.

Speeding is anti-social to a degree. So fair question about why the attitude to it is not harsher. But what about driving with sub-standard vision. Some reports suggest that 10% or more do this. Surely much more of a hazard but no public outcry and virtually little roadside testing. Should be automatic for any roadside encounter with the police?

First we need to define 'SPEEDING'
.
When councils ignore DfT guidance and the minister of state, setting arbitrary low limits, ignoring such limits can be justified and is not 'speeding'. DfT circular 1/06 says limits should not be set below the free flowing mean speed. Motorists have a choice - drive according to human psychology and DfT rules, or follow the rules of the less qualified council.
.
An 'experimental' scheme signed off by one lay person is an insult to democracy.
.
Bournemouth council cannot tell me the free flowing mean speed for the Wessex Way which has been conveniently lost in the mists of time.
.
Speed limits set according to the 85th percentile are more likely to be obeyed and will result in no more incidents. This has been proved over decades.
.
Artificially lowering speeds just to take the 'sting' out of an impact is flawed and supporters will only be satisfied when speeds have been reduced to zero, or to the speed of a man with a red flag.
.
Any common sense coming out of Bournemouth council is rare and can only be praised.

Sense at long last! The only nonsense spoken was by the DSCP, who are obviously trying to keep there jobs, for instance DSCP said:

“...throughout Dorset, when the safety camera partnership came into being in 2002 there were 52 deaths throughout the country (sic). In 2009 there were 26. "

Means nothing without clarification. How many were caused by (a) drink or drug driving; (b) vehicle defects; (c) driver error; (d) using mobile phones. None of these can be detected by cameras. Another factor are the terrible main roads in Dorset, conveniently never mentioned by any Council, possibly in case they have to spend money on them!

Also since 2002 cars have got safer. For example my 2004 Mondeo has airbags all round the passenger compartment so the chances of surviving an accident has gone up.

Get rid of the cameras, sell their vans and cameras to fund more Police patrols in both marked and unmarked cars. Not only will this prevent traffic violations but I've never heard of a speed camera stopping vandalism etc!

52 deaths in 2002, 26 deaths in 2009, Supposedly 26 deaths have been saved because of speed cameras, poppycock, how can anyone arrive at that assumption.
Although any death on our roads is a terrible thought, a hell of a lot of our money has been spent on these things and a lot of money raised.
Ok so 26 less people have died on our roads, as its impossible to prove whether speed cameras are the reason it is still millions of pounds spent for such a small return, I am in no way belittling any death on the road but come on, over seven years and all this money only 26 lives have been saved, allegedly
Cops with speed guns that's the answer, if you get caught then you and your car should be given every check in the book, tax, mot, insurance, breathalysed, tyre check, brakes, lights and much much more, something the speed camera does not do.
I hate to think how many drivers go through a speed camera get flashed and fined then laugh all the way to the bank because they had none of the above and were probably drunk into the bargain.
Real cops, real checks and get the knobheads of the roads.
I would rather see the millions that have been wasted on speed cameras put in to real policing and not just one motoring offence which is all the speed camera detects.

Cameras could have been actually quite effective, but the sums of money available have ended up attracting the undesirables, who have been, and are still, desperate to hang on to their easy jobs and incomes. They have ended up only as a mechanism to boost the egos and lifestyles of a few jobsworths and empire builders. Now, even many in the police and council, who have been a bit slow to listen to common sense, are at last starting to see the truth.

Good riddance, speed cameras, and the parasites that go with them. And now, also as many have been saying for years, introduce some proper policing on the roads. And reverse some of the totally stupid speed limit reductions we’ve seen in the last couple of years.

The Dorset Scameraship has killed the golden goose,Goodbye cameras,Pat Garret enjoy your retirement!

A police officer is indeed better than a camera, but a lot more expensive!! Still don't see the problems with speed cameras? They are only an issue if you break the law! Drive at an appropriate speed within the limit ( or even a bit over I've been told) and they pose no threat to you!!!!

traindriver3ss wrote:
A police officer is indeed better than a camera, but a lot more expensive!! Still don't see the problems with speed cameras? They are only an issue if you break the law! Drive at an appropriate speed within the limit ( or even a bit over I've been told) and they pose no threat to you!!!!

The threat they pose to me is that although they may catch the odd speeding driver, they dont catch the more serious offences which a police officer would.
The reliance on speed cameras makes drink and drug driving almost impossible to detect, the only time these morons get caught is when they are physically stopped by a police car, I feel more threatened, while driving, about getting hit by some dipstick who is completely leathered and driving on the wrong side of the road or hits me from behind than I do about someone driving at 40 mph in a 30mph limit.

captsanders wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:
A police officer is indeed better than a camera, but a lot more expensive!! Still don't see the problems with speed cameras? They are only an issue if you break the law! Drive at an appropriate speed within the limit ( or even a bit over I've been told) and they pose no threat to you!!!!

The threat they pose to me is that although they may catch the odd speeding driver, they dont catch the more serious offences which a police officer would.
The reliance on speed cameras makes drink and drug driving almost impossible to detect, the only time these morons get caught is when they are physically stopped by a police car, I feel more threatened, while driving, about getting hit by some dipstick who is completely leathered and driving on the wrong side of the road or hits me from behind than I do about someone driving at 40 mph in a 30mph limit.

so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

No dont agree, to spend millions on a yellow box that only detects one specific offence is a total waste of our money, i would rather see a police officer who can detect multiple offences, now thats value for money

traindriver3ss wrote:
A police officer is indeed better than a camera, but a lot more expensive!! Still don't see the problems with speed cameras? They are only an issue if you break the law! Drive at an appropriate speed within the limit ( or even a bit over I've been told) and they pose no threat to you!!!!

Completely missing the point. Road safety has indeed become nothing but “posing a threat of a penalty”, although only to the slower drivers who are not tuned into slowing at yellow boxes, and nothing about educating / removing dangerous drivers. The pretence of improved road safety not delivered in practice is indeed a threat. The real cost reductions associated with real accident reductions that would come from proper policing would cover the costs of the proper policing.

“so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%”
.
It wouldn’t be quite so bad if funds raised were properly used, but the system has become so corrupted, there’s no chance of that.

traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

I'm all for increasing the number of police! but as i understand it most cars speedometers over report speed. Speed camera's don't flash at you at 31 mph (I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted under 35 mph ( in a 30 limit)) allied to the under reporting of most speedometers I reckon that your speedo must be showing 37-40 mph before a camera snaps you? ( in other words your instrument shows you 23-33% over the speed limit). Hardly just over or an oversight is it?

captsanders wrote:
traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

we can all cut and paste mate, trouble is as well as seeing the site you cut and pasted that from I've found several that claim it is!

Irrelevant of the terminology if your break the law you have to take the consequences!!! its hardly the most serious offence and carries a pretty bloody minor penalty!!!

traindriver3ss wrote:
I'm all for increasing the number of police! but as i understand it most cars speedometers over report speed. Speed camera's don't flash at you at 31 mph (I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted under 35 mph ( in a 30 limit)) allied to the under reporting of most speedometers I reckon that your speedo must be showing 37-40 mph before a camera snaps you? ( in other words your instrument shows you 23-33% over the speed limit). Hardly just over or an oversight is it?

Still completely missing the point. 20 in some 30 limits at some times is dangerous. 50 can be entirely safe in some 30 limits at other times. If your objective is to fine people for driving with a particular number on their speedo, speed cameras are great, but you still have to do it exactly in front of them. If your objective is road safety, you need an entirely different solution.

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:
traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

we can all cut and paste mate, trouble is as well as seeing the site you cut and pasted that from I've found several that claim it is!

Irrelevant of the terminology if your break the law you have to take the consequences!!! its hardly the most serious offence and carries a pretty bloody minor penalty!!!

having looked at it more i think you may have confused recordable offence with criminal offence! but i may be wrong!!!

traindriver3ss wrote:
I'm all for increasing the number of police! but as i understand it most cars speedometers over report speed. Speed camera's don't flash at you at 31 mph (I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted under 35 mph ( in a 30 limit)) allied to the under reporting of most speedometers I reckon that your speedo must be showing 37-40 mph before a camera snaps you? ( in other words your instrument shows you 23-33% over the speed limit). Hardly just over or an oversight is it?

This is my general problem with people who get caught and say "but I was only doing 34!". That's what their actual speed was.

Most speedos (other than police cars) over read by 10%. Policemen with speed guns always calibrate their equipment to catch anything 10% +3mph over the limit. Therefore, you can be doing up to 80mph on a motorway before a policeman in a car will pull you over. However, GATSOs are set to trigger at anything over 10% over the limit, so if you get caught at 34mph, it would have been showing 37-38 on your speedo. Not really 'just over' like you say.
Oh, and this has come straight from the mouth of a police officer so :-P to anyone who disputes it.

dorsetspeed wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:
I'm all for increasing the number of police! but as i understand it most cars speedometers over report speed. Speed camera's don't flash at you at 31 mph (I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted under 35 mph ( in a 30 limit)) allied to the under reporting of most speedometers I reckon that your speedo must be showing 37-40 mph before a camera snaps you? ( in other words your instrument shows you 23-33% over the speed limit). Hardly just over or an oversight is it?

Still completely missing the point. 20 in some 30 limits at some times is dangerous. 50 can be entirely safe in some 30 limits at other times. If your objective is to fine people for driving with a particular number on their speedo, speed cameras are great, but you still have to do it exactly in front of them. If your objective is road safety, you need an entirely different solution.

and if doing that the charge i would suspect would be careless of dangerous driving! my aim is indeed safety improvements but also OBSERVING and OBEYING the law! its not difficult and the only people who seem to moan about it are those who don't think the law applies to them or live in the areas that suffer some of the problems!

"Most speedos (other than police cars) over read by 10%"

Not these days, On both my cars, they read about 2% high. That won't even make a difference at 35

Also, for the love of Jesus Christ and every other fairytale character, if you want to have a mass-debate (!) about this, kindly do it away from this article…?! You've really filled up my inbox today!

Mostly Pricker and that other one though.

What is the point of a machine stuck on the side of the road that only slows drivers down for about 25 yards.
Camera's are outdated and do nothing to prevent the speeding driver, they are there for one reason and one reason only money money money.
A police officer can stop a speeding car before he causes an accident, in daylight hours most don't even know they have been caught by a camera so where is the preventative measure here
Any driver who is stopped by a police car and given a good talking too and receives a fine and points will be crapping himself for ages, not so with camera's.
Destroy them all and the money saved put back into proper enforcement I.E bring back the traffic police then we will all be safer.

dorsetspeed wrote:
"Most speedos (other than police cars) over read by 10%"

Not these days, On both my cars, they read about 2% high. That won't even make a difference at 35

"Both" eh? Ooo…!

Fair enough, this was a few years ago I was told this so may have changed by now. Having said that, I'm never too accurate with my speed with cameras. I will happily overtake someone at about 55 through a camera on the wessex way and I've only been caught once but that was a few years ago at 91 in a 70 about so not really the same.

"and if doing that the charge i would suspect would be careless of dangerous driving! "
.
Great, then let's get some police out there doing what needs to be done. Speed cameras won't do it.

"my aim is indeed safety improvements but also OBSERVING and OBEYING the law!"
.
Great, then let's get some police out there doing what needs to be done. Speed cameras won't do it.

" its not difficult and the only people who seem to moan about it are those who don't think the law applies to them or live in the areas that suffer some of the problems!"

I'm not moaning, I want effective proper road policing, not yellow boxes which the boy racers and thugs just laugh at

traindriver3ss wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:
traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

we can all cut and paste mate, trouble is as well as seeing the site you cut and pasted that from I've found several that claim it is!

Irrelevant of the terminology if your break the law you have to take the consequences!!! its hardly the most serious offence and carries a pretty bloody minor penalty!!!

having looked at it more i think you may have confused recordable offence with criminal offence! but i may be wrong!!!

Yep your wrong, look again

soapboxdave wrote:
What is the point of a machine stuck on the side of the road that only slows drivers down for about 25 yards.
Camera's are outdated and do nothing to prevent the speeding driver, they are there for one reason and one reason only money money money.
A police officer can stop a speeding car before he causes an accident, in daylight hours most don't even know they have been caught by a camera so where is the preventative measure here
Any driver who is stopped by a police car and given a good talking too and receives a fine and points will be crapping himself for ages, not so with camera's.
Destroy them all and the money saved put back into proper enforcement I.E bring back the traffic police then we will all be safer.

That's why average speed camera's are much more effective!!!! watch the outcry if these are introduced as the speeders wont be able to brake hard past a camera then roar off again!!! Wonder what made up excuse will come out then oh that's right cash cows and scamera's

captsanders wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:
traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

we can all cut and paste mate, trouble is as well as seeing the site you cut and pasted that from I've found several that claim it is!

Irrelevant of the terminology if your break the law you have to take the consequences!!! its hardly the most serious offence and carries a pretty bloody minor penalty!!!

having looked at it more i think you may have confused recordable offence with criminal offence! but i may be wrong!!!

Yep your wrong, look again

"You're" wrong.

dorsetspeed wrote:
"and if doing that the charge i would suspect would be careless of dangerous driving! "
.
Great, then let's get some police out there doing what needs to be done. Speed cameras won't do it.

"my aim is indeed safety improvements but also OBSERVING and OBEYING the law!"
.
Great, then let's get some police out there doing what needs to be done. Speed cameras won't do it.

" its not difficult and the only people who seem to moan about it are those who don't think the law applies to them or live in the areas that suffer some of the problems!"

I'm not moaning, I want effective proper road policing, not yellow boxes which the boy racers and thugs just laugh at

I accept what you say and am all for more traffic police ( never thought I'd say that 25 years ago) but your point about obeying the law doesn't stack up. The only way that you will activate a speed camera is to break the law!!!!

I accept you are not moaning and that the speed camera has been used as the only form of road policing which is wrong! but they are a perfectly usable tool in the right circumstances!

captsanders wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:
traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

we can all cut and paste mate, trouble is as well as seeing the site you cut and pasted that from I've found several that claim it is!

Irrelevant of the terminology if your break the law you have to take the consequences!!! its hardly the most serious offence and carries a pretty bloody minor penalty!!!

having looked at it more i think you may have confused recordable offence with criminal offence! but i may be wrong!!!

Yep your wrong, look again

well the closest i can get is that it is not a criminal offence if by way of a fixed penalty. If however going to magistrates court ( as I believe is an option when caught by the camera's) and found guilty or pleading guilty it is indeed a criminal offence!!!

"The only way that you will activate a speed camera is to break the law!!!! "

Missing the point again. Doesn't mean that if you break a law, you will activate a speed camera (or any form of enforcement / penalty). Do you actually drive? Do you notice how many people break before a camera and then speed up again?

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:
traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

we can all cut and paste mate, trouble is as well as seeing the site you cut and pasted that from I've found several that claim it is!

Irrelevant of the terminology if your break the law you have to take the consequences!!! its hardly the most serious offence and carries a pretty bloody minor penalty!!!

having looked at it more i think you may have confused recordable offence with criminal offence! but i may be wrong!!!

Yep your wrong, look again

well the closest i can get is that it is not a criminal offence if by way of a fixed penalty. If however going to magistrates court ( as I believe is an option when caught by the camera's) and found guilty or pleading guilty it is indeed a criminal offence!!!

Which is exactly what I said, no penalty charge notice is a criminal offence, the only time it becomes criminal is if you attend court and are found guilty by that court, then it becomes a criminal conviction, took a long tome but we got there in the end.
To be honest any person who argues a speeding offence in court needs his head examined unless he can prove that the camera was faulty which has be succsessful in some cases.

Yes I do drive and no I'm not missing the point I fully understand that these devices will not catch all offences or even the majority!

However if you read this paper they are catching thousands a year who are not obeying the law!!! You seem to be missing the facts of what i said are correct!

You could even argue that if a persons observation skills are so poor or you're distracted so much whilst driving that you miss a bloody great big yellow box on the side of the road and still you speed you should not be on the road!!!

captsanders wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

traindriver3ss wrote:

captsanders wrote:
traindriver3ss wrote:
so you would not object if the money raised from these camera's, from the criminals they catch was spent on funding more police officers, to catch the ones that the camera's cant ( drunk drivers etc)? Great idea!!! I'm with you 100%

You need to brush up on your law, speeding is not a criminal offence, in fact and fine or points issued through a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal offence under uk law.

we can all cut and paste mate, trouble is as well as seeing the site you cut and pasted that from I've found several that claim it is!

Irrelevant of the terminology if your break the law you have to take the consequences!!! its hardly the most serious offence and carries a pretty bloody minor penalty!!!

having looked at it more i think you may have confused recordable offence with criminal offence! but i may be wrong!!!

Yep your wrong, look again

well the closest i can get is that it is not a criminal offence if by way of a fixed penalty. If however going to magistrates court ( as I believe is an option when caught by the camera's) and found guilty or pleading guilty it is indeed a criminal offence!!!

Which is exactly what I said, no penalty charge notice is a criminal offence, the only time it becomes criminal is if you attend court and are found guilty by that court, then it becomes a criminal conviction, took a long tome but we got there in the end.
To be honest any person who argues a speeding offence in court needs his head examined unless he can prove that the camera was faulty which has be succsessful in some cases.

I don't believe i made a distinction! Many people caught by camera's choose to go to court and argue the case with magistrates so I'm told! Perhaps I should have said those breaking the law however!!!!

traindriver3ss wrote:
Yes I do drive and no I'm not missing the point I fully understand that these devices will not catch all offences or even the majority!

However if you read this paper they are catching thousands a year who are not obeying the law!!! You seem to be missing the facts of what i said are correct!

You could even argue that if a persons observation skills are so poor or you're distracted so much whilst driving that you miss a bloody great big yellow box on the side of the road and still you speed you should not be on the road!!!

The partnerships have become increasing desperate to make money, hence cameras like the greed on green in Poole, rigidly and stealthily enforcing a 30 limit on a road which originally had a 70 limit. The boy racers go through at the limit then put their foot down again. Those are being caught are the elderly, and mature drivers, many professional drivers, ambulance / fire vehicle drivers, with 20-30 years unblemished driving history, because their judgment has always been good about what speed to drive and they simply haven’t needed to take much notice of limits and enforcements while limits were realistic. This is why cameras are considered with the contempt they deserve. They could indeed have been used wisely and effectively, they have instead, as I have pointed out before, been used only to boost the lifestyles and egos of a few jobsworths and empire builders. It’s pointless going on, they will be shut down, and this will be good.

Getting back to the original headline, lets hope that this is the end for static speed camera funding, not only in Dorset but the whole country.

Fixed $a£ety $CAMera$ will be switched off for sure, but the little yellow boxes will remain in place so that motorists won't be certain if they're defunct or not.
The greed on green $CAMera$ will obviously remain as they're still making money for HMRC.
But hopefully the morons in their little white vans will all be getting their p45's very soon. Cheerio losers.
$peed $CAMera$ were never about safety. They were about making money from new technology. But now we're all wise to them these fixed $CAMera$ are obsolete and it's time for them to go the way of the Dodo.
More police officers on the roads is the way forward. They can see more than just speed. They can check tax, insurance, erratic driving, mobile phone use etc and enforce the law with discretion according to road conditions. Something stupid yellow boxes were never going to do.
RIP Dor$et Road $a£e.
Goodbye and good riddance.

Mr. Garret's figures are cherry-picked and seriously misleading. I have all the national and police area data and they show:

Dorset K fell from 87 (1989) to 53 (1993) with no cameras whatever, then still with few if any cameras fell again to 31 (1998) but as cameras numbers started to rise (even before the formal partnership) so did deaths, to 54 (2002). Then they fell again to 36 (2007 and 2008) - still above 31 ten years earlier! The average rate of fall 2002 - 2008 of 3pa (18 in 6 years) with Partnership's many cameras was less than half of the 6.4pa fall (56 in 9 years) from 1989 to 1998 with very few cameras. The 2009 fall from 36 to 23 (in a year of exceptionally high petrol prices and the worst recession in most people's experience) which Mr.Garret choses to include in his claim was wholly exceptional for Dorset and is unlikely to be maintained, but even including it, the 7 year average of the Partnership is still only 4.4pa (31 in 7 years) 30% worse than was achieved in 1989 to 1998 with few if any cameras.

It was always in any case literally impossible for cameras covering no more than 2% of Dorset roads, and by definition affecting (if at all) only the 14% of fatal accidents that involve speeds above the limit, to have any statistically beneficial effect on overall fatality numbers - especially as cameras typically cut speeding by 50% or so, not 100%. (For those who still understand arithmetic, 14% x 2% x 50% = 0.14% maximum theoretical reductin, or from 54 about 1 death every 14 years - at a cost of £2m or £28m over those 14 years)

In the real world falling fatality trends have for decades been caused by improving roads and vehicles including safety features, tyres, roadholding, stability, seat belts etc and better medical response - all that cameras have ever achieved is to waste massive amounts of money making things worse.

Incidentally I am not in the least interested in sanctimonious comments from those who have not yet been caught, all that matters is that cameras cause more problems than they solve, by far. And that as the DfT finally admitted in 2007, £1,000 pa vehicle activated signs provide whatever limited benefits benefit £50,000 pa cameras ever could, and for the most part without adverse effects. See www.safespeed.org.uk
/vas.html

Idris Francis wrote:
Mr. Garret's figures are cherry-picked and seriously misleading. I have all the national and police area data and they show:

Dorset K fell from 87 (1989) to 53 (1993) with no cameras whatever, then still with few if any cameras fell again to 31 (1998) but as cameras numbers started to rise (even before the formal partnership) so did deaths, to 54 (2002). Then they fell again to 36 (2007 and 2008) - still above 31 ten years earlier! The average rate of fall 2002 - 2008 of 3pa (18 in 6 years) with Partnership's many cameras was less than half of the 6.4pa fall (56 in 9 years) from 1989 to 1998 with very few cameras. The 2009 fall from 36 to 23 (in a year of exceptionally high petrol prices and the worst recession in most people's experience) which Mr.Garret choses to include in his claim was wholly exceptional for Dorset and is unlikely to be maintained, but even including it, the 7 year average of the Partnership is still only 4.4pa (31 in 7 years) 30% worse than was achieved in 1989 to 1998 with few if any cameras.

It was always in any case literally impossible for cameras covering no more than 2% of Dorset roads, and by definition affecting (if at all) only the 14% of fatal accidents that involve speeds above the limit, to have any statistically beneficial effect on overall fatality numbers - especially as cameras typically cut speeding by 50% or so, not 100%. (For those who still understand arithmetic, 14% x 2% x 50% = 0.14% maximum theoretical reductin, or from 54 about 1 death every 14 years - at a cost of £2m or £28m over those 14 years)

In the real world falling fatality trends have for decades been caused by improving roads and vehicles including safety features, tyres, roadholding, stability, seat belts etc and better medical response - all that cameras have ever achieved is to waste massive amounts of money making things worse.

Incidentally I am not in the least interested in sanctimonious comments from those who have not yet been caught, all that matters is that cameras cause more problems than they solve, by far. And that as the DfT finally admitted in 2007, £1,000 pa vehicle activated signs provide whatever limited benefits benefit £50,000 pa cameras ever could, and for the most part without adverse effects. See www.safespeed.org.uk

/vas.html

Jesus christ, you lost me after Mr Garret's figures.

Idris Francis, welcome to the debate - a man with b*lls who stood up to the bullies. Shame the establishment closed ranks.

Why does this have to be an 'either... , or... ' situation?
Either fixed speed cameras, or more traffic police.
Why not both?
The answer is simple, it means more taxes in some way, shape or form; and we all know how we feel about that.
So, a compromise, of sorts, keep the speed cameras operating until the much needed extra traffic police are in place and functioning fully, then and only then remove the cameras.
Personally, I'd like to see properly deployed speed cameras and an increase in traffic police in operation everywhere; backed up with heavier fines and more points on licences for minor driving offences, plus imprisonment for drunk-driving, driving dangerously, etc.

Rally wrote:
Why does this have to be an 'either... , or... ' situation?
Either fixed speed cameras, or more traffic police.
Why not both?
The answer is simple, it means more taxes in some way, shape or form; and we all know how we feel about that.
So, a compromise, of sorts, keep the speed cameras operating until the much needed extra traffic police are in place and functioning fully, then and only then remove the cameras.
Personally, I'd like to see properly deployed speed cameras and an increase in traffic police in operation everywhere; backed up with heavier fines and more points on licences for minor driving offences, plus imprisonment for drunk-driving, driving dangerously, etc.

Great idea in an ideal world but unaffordable to have both, we need more police, not only traffic but more in general.
50 years ago police walked the beat and at the blow of a whistle they were there to help, now police are in cars that travel at 140mph and it takes them hours to turn up at anything, except of course breakfast, dump the millions wasted on cameras and plough it into a police force that was once the envy of the civilised world, sadly not now though.

There's no point in replacing cameras with people in cars if all they do is enforce unrealistic and eroded speed limits. Limits that the police have agreed to in private, but which break DfT guidelines.
.
Speed is such a minor contributory factor in causing collisions and we need action on bad (deliberately or not) driving, eyesight, drunk, too old, inexperienced, agressive motorbikes, tailgating etc, and some sort of automatic penalty when a driver is to blame for an incident. Accident makes it sound like it was nobody's fault.
.
Presumably drivers should be educated if their driving falls below a certain standard, just as council leaders are educated if the use of their laptop falls outside acceptable behaviour.
.
If you've proved you are a bad driver by having an accident, you should be punished more than someone who broke a limit by a small margin and without incident.

JonathanP wrote:
There's no point in replacing cameras with people in cars if all they do is enforce unrealistic and eroded speed limits. Limits that the police have agreed to in private, but which break DfT guidelines. . Speed is such a minor contributory factor in causing collisions and we need action on bad (deliberately or not) driving, eyesight, drunk, too old, inexperienced, agressive motorbikes, tailgating etc, and some sort of automatic penalty when a driver is to blame for an incident. Accident makes it sound like it was nobody's fault. . Presumably drivers should be educated if their driving falls below a certain standard, just as council leaders are educated if the use of their laptop falls outside acceptable behaviour. . If you've proved you are a bad driver by having an accident, you should be punished more than someone who broke a limit by a small margin and without incident.

Which ever way you look at it, JonathanP, wittingly exceeding the posted speed limit is a case of bad driving.
You wrote, '... someone who broke a limit by a small margin and without incident.'
And what, to you, is a 'small margin'?
Is it the same as what any other motorist deems to be a 'small margin'?
Would you apply this anarchic 'no harm done' attitude of yours to a person throwing lighted matches around a petrol filling station but not setting off a fire?

Rally, You're still not getting the point are you.
.
I never said people should not be punished. Simply that those who have proved bad driving by crashing be treated more harshly than those that break a rule. I suspect many people involved in a crash are never prosecuted by the police even though they are held to blame by their insurance company.
.
See my post above about so called 'speeding'. Ignoring limits set contrary to DfT guidance is not 'bad driving', but good and appropriate driving, shows you have a brain to think for yourself, and believe in the democratic parliamentary process.
.
We have a serious problem when a few old duffers at the local council think they can ignore DfT guidance and the minister of transport.
.
Your choice - drive according to DfT rules or council rules.

JonathanP wrote:
Rally, You're still not getting the point are you. . I never said people should not be punished. Simply that those who have proved bad driving by crashing be treated more harshly than those that break a rule. I suspect many people involved in a crash are never prosecuted by the police even though they are held to blame by their insurance company. . See my post above about so called 'speeding'. Ignoring limits set contrary to DfT guidance is not 'bad driving', but good and appropriate driving, shows you have a brain to think for yourself, and believe in the democratic parliamentary process. . We have a serious problem when a few old duffers at the local council think they can ignore DfT guidance and the minister of transport. . Your choice - drive according to DfT rules or council rules.

JonathanP wrote, 'Rally, You're still not getting the point are you.'
On the contrary, JonathanP, I get your point, but I disagree with it.

JonathanP wrote, 'Ignoring limits set contrary to DfT guidance is not "bad driving", but good and appropriate driving, shows you have a brain to think for yourself, and believe in the democratic parliamentary process.'
No, JonathanP, it shows the driver to be an arrogant fool.
IMO it is incredibly stupid and downright irresponsible of you to encourage drivers to ignore a posted speed limit just because it is contrary to DfT guidelines.
And how do you get around the fact that the vast majority of us drivers will have no idea whether the posted speed limit is contrary to DfT guidelines.
Perhaps we should have speed signs (such as the 30mph one on the Holes Bay Road) fitted with neon signs saying: 'This speed limit contravenes DfT guidelines. Please ignore it and drive as fast as you think safe'.

JonathanP wrote, 'Your choice - drive according to DfT rules or council rules.'
But this means we would end up with some folks driving according to the posted speed limit and others driving at tens of miles per hour faster - on the same stretch of road...
Can you not see the problem here, JonathanP?

I dont think that any of us disagree that the people who blatantly speed deserve whatever penalty they get ,but its a fact that few of us in a modern car find ourselves inside the speed limit all the time - its very distracting to do that,more often than not we go with the flow of the traffic ahead of us even if it is running 10 mph over limit ,in this there will be no significant risk to any other road user .people using their own common sense on the road should not be an issue .when you get pulled for doing 40 in a 30 ,some 'I'm better than you' 25 year old copper tells you its unacceptable. as if you are the worlds worst criminal . and yet youve just seen some idiot really winding it on and they are going to get away with it.we all drift over the limit from time to time even police officers in patrol cars ,so whats the big deal.I think we find the use of these cameras offensive because they are not effective outside of a few yard stretch of road and they interupt the traffic flow . its time to get rid of them

Rally,
“JonathanP wrote, 'Ignoring limits set contrary to DfT guidance is not "bad driving", but good and appropriate driving, shows you have a brain to think for yourself, and believe in the democratic parliamentary process.'
No, JonathanP, it shows the driver to be an arrogant fool.”
.
I don’t think any driver does not at some point go slightly over a limit on any journey. So you think that all drivers, probably on the planet, are arrogant fools. It simply isn’t like this, this is where your credibility falls over. In fact, as I have previously mentioned, those who are being caught by the latest desperate attempt to hang on to easy money, the greed on green in Poole, are the elderly, and mature drivers, many professional drivers, ambulance / fire vehicle drivers, with 20-30 years unblemished driving history, because their judgment has always been good about what speed to drive and they simply haven’t needed to take much notice of limits and enforcements while limits were realistic. This is why cameras are considered with the contempt they deserve.
.
Personally, I like the current speed camera system because if I am in a hurry, I can drive at whatever speed I like (safely of course). But I’m willing to give up this convenience because we have no effective policing on the roads at all, and this has resulted in widespread bad and dangerous driving.
.
The sooner we stop pretending this is being solved by a few yellow boxes, the sooner we can move on.

caz-caz, I would have thought that in a truly 'modern car' you could have cruise control installed to ensure you didn't break the limit and yet didn't have to keep checking the speedo (not that it takes more than a split-second).



Also, it's a poor driver indeed who is so intimidated by the speed of other traffic that they feel the need to drive faster.



Given your remark about the police, it appears that you object to enforcement of speed limits by any means – unless used only against those travelling a bit faster than you?

I do find dorsetspeed's argument that some drivers 'simply haven’t needed to take much notice of limits and enforcements' a bit hard to swallow. I'd like to see him try that excuse if he's ever pulled over by the police: “Oh, it's okay officer, I'm an expert driver so I don't need to obey the law.”

Personally, I like the current speed camera system because if I am in a hurry, I can drive at whatever speed I like (safely of course). But I’m willing to give up this convenience because we have no effective policing on the roads at all, and this has resulted in widespread bad and dangerous driving.

The hell you do. So that's why you started a campaign against speed cameras? Pull the other one!

The Liberal wrote:

Personally, I like the current speed camera system because if I am in a hurry, I can drive at whatever speed I like (safely of course). But I’m willing to give up this convenience because we have no effective policing on the roads at all, and this has resulted in widespread bad and dangerous driving.

The hell you do. So that's why you started a campaign against speed cameras? Pull the other one!

No, my campaign against speed cameras is because they have resulted in criminalizing the gentlest of drivers while are easily avoided by hooligans. It’s got nothing to do with my personal driving.

JonathanP wrote:
Rally, You're still not getting the point are you. . I never said people should not be punished. Simply that those who have proved bad driving by crashing be treated more harshly than those that break a rule. I suspect many people involved in a crash are never prosecuted by the police even though they are held to blame by their insurance company. . See my post above about so called 'speeding'. Ignoring limits set contrary to DfT guidance is not 'bad driving', but good and appropriate driving, shows you have a brain to think for yourself, and believe in the democratic parliamentary process. . We have a serious problem when a few old duffers at the local council think they can ignore DfT guidance and the minister of transport. . Your choice - drive according to DfT rules or council rules.

Reading the above comments actually shows you do not get the point.
.
Crashing does not necessarily prove that the person was a bad driver and should be punished. I crashed last year...wrote my car off, Clipped another, half destroyed a tree and lamp post, my premiums have gone up, but i was never prosecuted. Why?.....I had a blowout at 70mph....Therefore not my fault, but of course the insurance company doesn't see it that way!
.
Ignoring speed limits however IS bad driving and there is NO argument against it. If you believe a speed limit is "contrary to DfT guidance" then you should be raising that through the relevant authorities to try and get it changed, not arrogantly ignoring it...that way lies anarchy.

JP has done his best to do exactly that (as have many including me) but the "relevant authorities" don't give a toss, and indeed, this has resulted in anarchy. And speed cameras do nothing to resolve the anarchy, wether or not, speeding is right or wrong, this is the point.

dorsetspeed wrote:
JP has done his best to do exactly that (as have many including me) but the "relevant authorities" don't give a toss, and indeed, this has resulted in anarchy. And speed cameras do nothing to resolve the anarchy, wether or not, speeding is right or wrong, this is the point.

Take them to court then. If you lose in court then you are wrong and the speed limit would be shown to be correct (and vice versa). Also , how has the authorities not giving "a toss" resulted in anarchy?

I mentioned nothing about speed cameras, they simply record someone exceeding the posted speed limit. Whether you think a speed limit is right or wrong or should be obeyed or broken is irrelevant to the argument for or against speed cameras.

I’m happy to help to bring down the jobsworths and empire builders but don’t have sufficient time or spare resources to take the authorities to court, obviously. The majority believe that poor speed limit decisions, and poor compliance with limits are major contributing factors to the resulting conclusion that cameras have been badly implemented and need to be shut down in their current form.

I shall be putting Poole council before the LG ombudsman for willfully ignoring DfT guidelines. The anarchy started with the council. I am sure it was 'legal' to gas Jews in Germany, but it didn't make it right. As Dorsetspeed says, many of us including safespeed.org have tried to influence the authorities and they have treated us with contempt.
.
The DfT are part of the problem, in that their rules should be backed by statute and the DfT should not be sitting quietly on the fence when they see their guidelines being ignored. Who is in control, the DfT or councils? There is nothing in law to stop councils setting a 10mph speed limit everywhere.
.
A recent Meridian piece on 'speeding' in Oxfordshire made a big thing of just over 50% exceeding the speed limit. This is entirely to be expected when a limit is set according to the 50th percentile, sometimes rounded down. The 50th percentile means that 50% of drivers will drive in excess of this speed. As Dorsetspeed says, good drivers know what the right speed is to drive at, and will continue to do so, whatever anarchy exists within the council.
.
The old method of setting limits according to the 85th percentile was far superior in that the top 15% were probably a risk and needed slowing down. 85% were guaranteed to be complying with the limit at the outset.
.
The trouble started when authorities wanted to reduce speeds to take the 'sting' out of accidents and make their arbitrary targets look good, so they moved to the 50th percentile since this was a lower figure.
.
Notwithstanding the above, 30mph is the correct limit in a proper built up area in case a pedestrian is hit.
.
Are all the people that slow down for cameras on the Wessex Way and then speed up again anarchists? Or are they good drivers, that just know the correct speed to drive at. The council don't even know what the free-flowing 50th or 85th percentile is on this road.
.
The highways agency are far more professional in their approach and refuse to drop the limit on the Ringwood bypass from 70mph to 50mph.

I have just filed the following formal complaint with Dorset Partnership about attempting to pervert the course of justice.

2Seriously misleading information on your Wen Site - Attempting to Pervert The Course of Justice

Dear Sirs

Your web page http://www.dorsetroa
dsafe.org.uk/index.p
hp?option=com_conten
t&task=view&id=20&It
emid=34 states:

"False Information

A fine and penalty points Versus a Prison Sentence

A person who knowingly provides the Police with false information as to the driver of their vehicle or the whereabouts of their vehicle commits a crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice or perverting the course of justice. This is a far more serious crime than the original offence and can carry a prison sentence.

Where false information is suspected, alleged by a third party or comes to light by other means, the Police will always investigate these cases.

Perverting the course of justice may also be investigated retrospectively.

For example: If a current case is under investigation for attempting to pervert the course of justice and as a result of that investigation it comes to light that false information has been supplied in the past, all other such cases will be re-opened and investigated.

As unwelcome as a fine and penalty points on your driving licence is, DO NOT BE TEMPTED TO MAKE THINGS WORSE BY NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. "

Fair enough (although being forced to incriminate oneself under threat of worse penalties is unique in the whole of British law to motoring offences of this kind, and even then only to modest offences which do not themselves carry prison sentences. In short the law itself is a breach of the 400 year old "right to silence", also known in the USA as the Fifth Amendment)

But sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, and hence giving recipients of NIPs false information which tends to make them confess to offences they know they have not committed, or are unsure they have committed, also amounts to attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I therefore bring to your attention two statements on your web site

http://www.dorsetroa
dsafe.org.uk/index.p
hp?option=com_conten
t&task=view&id=13&It
emid=27

"As the recipient of the notice, you are required under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988, to provide the requested information by completion
of the response section which must be signed"

and

"Keepers liability

It is a legal requirement of the registered keeper of the vehicle to supply information requested, failure to do so may result in court proceedings. Liability cannot be evaded."

WRONG!

Both statement wrongly imply an absolute legal requirement to provide the information and completely ignore para 4 S172 RTA 1988 which states that :

"(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was."

To my certain knowledge some drivers have admitted guilt and suffered penalties when they knew they were not driving, were uncertain whether they had been, and were unaware of the para 4 defence - not least because Partnership web sites such as your own almost always fail to mention that defence.

Another reason that many that drivers - especially those already on 9 points - often prefer to accept a 3 point penalty and £60 fine (or indeed a Speed Awareness Course) rather than risk an automatic 6 point penalty and much higher fine for failing to identify.

Both statements are also seriously misleading in relation to Coporate Registered Keepers, whose only responsibility is "to provide such information as is in their power to give" - again far from an absolute legal requirement automatically leading to criminal charges if not complied with.

In addition to attempting to pervert the course of justice - a serious criminal offence - both statements also amount to criminal inducement of others to provide false information.

Stott v Brown - "modest" fines only

The High Court case Stott v Brown, 2000, which authorised the continued use of enforced self-incrimination did so on the explicit premise that it applied only to cases involving "modest" fines - usually taken to mean no more than £1,000 - with no prospect of imprisonment.

There have been at least two cases since when neither occupant of a car would identify the other as the driver or admit himself, and charges could not be brought because the severity of the crash and/or nature of the injuries would have led to imprisonment if proved.

That your web site fails to point out that no such legal obligation exists in the case of more serious offences could well lead to a driver not being aware of the reality of the law incriminating himself when he was not obliged to do so. This is simply not acceptable.

You also state that "correspondence will not be entered into" and it is not uncommon for Partnerships to refuse to discuss pleas of mitigation in this way by claiming that mitigation is only for courts to decide. This is simply not true, police forces and partnerships are required by law to consider pleas of mitigation even before charges are laid - I could copy you the legal position if you wish.

All of these serious errors - all skewing things the same way, towards confessions of guilt regardless of the facts - are simply unacceptable in a democracy. Please confirm without delay that these statements will be removed or re-written accurately to reflect the law is it actually is, rather than as your Partnership would wish it to be.


You would also be well-advised to add a disclaimer, that no one should take your Partnerships legal advice without consulting lawyers.

Yours faithfully,

Idris Francis

dorsetspeed wrote: The majority believe that poor speed limit decisions, and poor compliance with limits are major contributing factors to the resulting conclusion that cameras have been badly implemented and need to be shut down in their current form.
Do you have the figures to prove that the majority believe this? If not, it's merely your own opinion which you are trying to pass off as fact.
 
Jonathan P wrote: I am sure it was 'legal' to gas Jews in Germany, but it didn't make it right. Now you're comparing the council to the Nazis?! Godwin's law is invoked and you automatically lose the argument!

Liberal, talk to people in the street, I've spoken to many. Read articles and comments on news items. Speed cameras are about as popular as duck-houses for MPs. If you don't like the comparison with Nazis, here's some more laws:
.
Placing a postage stamp bearing the monarch’s head upside down on an envelope is considered as act of treason
.
Dying is illegal in the Houses of Parliaments.
.
London hackney carriages must carry a bale of hay and a sack of oats
.
The eating of Mince pies on Christmas day is illegal
.
Hmm, speeding (as it is now) goes quite well with these

Sorry, coundn't resist some more:
.
In France, it is forbidden to call a pig Napoleon
.
Under the UK’s Tax Avoidance Schemes Regulations 2006, it is illegal not to tell the taxman anything you don’t want him to know, though you don’t have to tell him anything you don’t mind him knowing
.
In Ohio, it is against state law to get a fish drunk
.
Royal Navy ships that enter the Port of London must provide a barrel of rum to the Constable of the Tower of London
.
In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants – even, if she so requests, in a policeman’s helmet
.
In Lancashire, no person is permitted after being asked to stop by a constable on the seashore to incite a dog to bark
.
In the UK, a man who feels compelled to urinate in public can do so only if he aims for his rear wheel and keeps his right hand on his vehicle
.
In the city of York, it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow

dorsetspeed wrote:
Liberal, talk to people in the street, I've spoken to many. Read articles and comments on news items. Speed cameras are about as popular as duck-houses for MPs. If you don't like the comparison with Nazis, here's some more laws:
.
Placing a postage stamp bearing the monarch’s head upside down on an envelope is considered as act of treason
.
Dying is illegal in the Houses of Parliaments.
.
London hackney carriages must carry a bale of hay and a sack of oats
.
The eating of Mince pies on Christmas day is illegal
.
Hmm, speeding (as it is now) goes quite well with these

Now you're just being silly. Those are all obsolete laws. Just because they haven't been specifically repealed by Parliament doesn't make them still active and enforceable.
 
So you've spoken to a few people on the street on the subject of speed cameras? Hardly a representative sample, is it? And how do we know that you didn't ask loaded questions? As I said, passing off your own opinion as fact.
 
By the way, it's 'The Liberal' to you.

dorsetspeed can we ask how many points you have on your licence and how many times you've been caught by a speed camera?

dorsetspeed wrote:
Liberal, talk to people in the street, I've spoken to many. Read articles and comments on news items. Speed cameras are about as popular as duck-houses for MPs. If you don't like the comparison with Nazis, here's some more laws: . Placing a postage stamp bearing the monarch’s head upside down on an envelope is considered as act of treason . Dying is illegal in the Houses of Parliaments. . London hackney carriages must carry a bale of hay and a sack of oats . The eating of Mince pies on Christmas day is illegal . Hmm, speeding (as it is now) goes quite well with these

I'm sure you'll say that the "many" you've spoken to are against speed cameras. I could just as easily say that I don't know of anyone who doesn't support their use. Who is correct? As The Liberal says....Figures Please!
.
Most of the comments on here do appear to be against them, although that maybe because you and Insight post more than anyone else!, but that is not a statistically correct sample.
.
As to the other "daft" laws, they are just that....daft...in todays world. Enforcing speed limits is not daft.

"Enforcing speed limits is not daft." Of course it isn't. So let's have some enforcement methods that work. Then we can also have realistic limits.

I got caught by a camera about 8 years ago, nothing since, but that doesn't mean I don't speed, it means I don't get caught which is easy. But I repeat, this isn't about me, it's about properly targeting dangerous driving, of which there is plenty.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Rally, “JonathanP wrote, 'Ignoring limits set contrary to DfT guidance is not "bad driving", but good and appropriate driving, shows you have a brain to think for yourself, and believe in the democratic parliamentary process.' No, JonathanP, it shows the driver to be an arrogant fool.” . I don’t think any driver does not at some point go slightly over a limit on any journey. So you think that all drivers, probably on the planet, are arrogant fools. It simply isn’t like this, this is where your credibility falls over. In fact, as I have previously mentioned, those who are being caught by the latest desperate attempt to hang on to easy money, the greed on green in Poole, are the elderly, and mature drivers, many professional drivers, ambulance / fire vehicle drivers, with 20-30 years unblemished driving history, because their judgment has always been good about what speed to drive and they simply haven’t needed to take much notice of limits and enforcements while limits were realistic. This is why cameras are considered with the contempt they deserve. . Personally, I like the current speed camera system because if I am in a hurry, I can drive at whatever speed I like (safely of course). But I’m willing to give up this convenience because we have no effective policing on the roads at all, and this has resulted in widespread bad and dangerous driving. . The sooner we stop pretending this is being solved by a few yellow boxes, the sooner we can move on.

dorsetspeed wrote: 'I don’t think any driver does not at some point go slightly over a limit on any journey. So you think that all drivers, probably on the planet, are arrogant fools.'
Typically, dorsetspeed takes a poster's comment out of its context and then distorts it.
Dorsetspeed, there is a world of difference between drifting a few mph over the posted speed limit, and ignoring posted speed limits 'set contrary to DfT guidance' (as JonathanP put it).
IMO, any driver who does the latter is an arrogant fool.
I suggest you go back to my post and read it in full before commenting on it further.

so it's ok to go over the limit if you don't mean it, and not ok if you do it deliberately?

so if its easy to not get caught ( and i don't disagree) what does that say about the drivers that do? maybe not once but several times!!!!

dorsetspeed wrote:
so it's ok to go over the limit if you don't mean it, and not ok if you do it deliberately?

Now you are being deliberately obtuse, dorsetspeed, and it does you no credit.
If a driver drifts over the posted speed limit, then it is usually a matter of a few mph (remember 10% +2?) and only briefly.
Whereas a driver deliberately ignoring the posted speed limit is more likely to be motoring at well over the margin of error for prolonged periods of time.
The former is more or less acceptable.
The latter is completely unacceptable.

Ok, you don't want people driving at more than a few mph over for any distance. You'd better start campaigning for the end of ineffective speed cameras, and for some proper effictive road policing instead.

Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

Call me paranoid but her eis scenario for you all to think about... OK the Govt has reduced funding to councils so they get rid of the speed cameras. A Govt survey will show that since the end of speed cameras, accidents have gone up. The Govt then issues a contract to a private company (Capita, Siemens etc) to install and operate new cameras, with the private company benefiting from the fines.

EGHH wrote:
Call me paranoid but her eis scenario for you all to think about... OK the Govt has reduced funding to councils so they get rid of the speed cameras. A Govt survey will show that since the end of speed cameras, accidents have gone up. The Govt then issues a contract to a private company (Capita, Siemens etc) to install and operate new cameras, with the private company benefiting from the fines.

surely not you cynic!!!!!! its not like seimans are funding the trial of a new type of speed camera anywhere in the area is it? Not even Broadstone!!!

The Liberal wrote:
caz-caz, I would have thought that in a truly 'modern car' you could have cruise control installed to ensure you didn't break the limit and yet didn't have to keep checking the speedo (not that it takes more than a split-second). Also, it's a poor driver indeed who is so intimidated by the speed of other traffic that they feel the need to drive faster. Given your remark about the police, it appears that you object to enforcement of speed limits by any means – unless used only against those travelling a bit faster than you?

leave it out ,i'm not a child i am very capable of driving sensibly and i dont expect to be spoken down to by some boy just out of short trousers who wasnt even born when i took my test - why do i resent that .... work it out for yourself - theres too much of this big brother nonsense from people no better than me and sometimes considerably worse

soapboxdave wrote:
Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote:
Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

Is this the end for static speed camera funding in Bournemouth?
This was the headline for this story but you two have to hijack it yet again and turn it into an argument over who supports speed cameras and who doesn't.
We all know your views, jesus christ you bleat on about it enough, and we all know dorsetspeeds views, the pair of you repeat the same old stuff day after day week after week, why cant you stick to the headline, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, all I can say is I hope so, then I wont have to read your drivel ever again.

soapboxdave wrote:

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

Is this the end for static speed camera funding in Bournemouth? This was the headline for this story but you two have to hijack it yet again and turn it into an argument over who supports speed cameras and who doesn't. We all know your views, jesus christ you bleat on about it enough, and we all know dorsetspeeds views, the pair of you repeat the same old stuff day after day week after week, why cant you stick to the headline, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, all I can say is I hope so, then I wont have to read your drivel ever again.

I agree..............I think "rally" is on a mission to bore us half to death with his obsession with speed cameras!
Get over it!.......the scameras are going

twobigdogs wrote:

soapboxdave wrote:

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

Is this the end for static speed camera funding in Bournemouth? This was the headline for this story but you two have to hijack it yet again and turn it into an argument over who supports speed cameras and who doesn't. We all know your views, jesus christ you bleat on about it enough, and we all know dorsetspeeds views, the pair of you repeat the same old stuff day after day week after week, why cant you stick to the headline, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, all I can say is I hope so, then I wont have to read your drivel ever again.

I agree..............I think "rally" is on a mission to bore us half to death with his obsession with speed cameras!
Get over it!.......the scameras are going

I wonder if he has speed camera wallpaper in his bedroom.

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

soapboxdave,
128 posts so far - 7 by me (including this one).
You were saying... :)

Rally wrote:

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

soapboxdave,
128 posts so far - 7 by me (including this one).
You were saying... :)

Wow you took the time to count through all your posts, how boring.
If you have so much time on your hands locate all the posts on this subject and read the previous comments you have made, repeatative would be an understatement.
As I said before, the same old inane drivel, the same old comments, and your comments always turn this page into an argument with dorsetspeed.
You him the same old questions when he makes a comment, are you sure you dont just copy and paste your previous comments,
If you were to simply comment on the headline of this particular story which is, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, it would open up a whole new different debate instead of the boring old inane drivel that you post time after time.
Why cant you agree to disagree with dorset speed, you absolutly love speed cameras and dorsetspeed is against them for his reasons, get a life and move on for goodness sake.

soapboxdave wrote:

twobigdogs wrote:

soapboxdave wrote:

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

Is this the end for static speed camera funding in Bournemouth? This was the headline for this story but you two have to hijack it yet again and turn it into an argument over who supports speed cameras and who doesn't. We all know your views, jesus christ you bleat on about it enough, and we all know dorsetspeeds views, the pair of you repeat the same old stuff day after day week after week, why cant you stick to the headline, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, all I can say is I hope so, then I wont have to read your drivel ever again.

I agree..............I think "rally" is on a mission to bore us half to death with his obsession with speed cameras! Get over it!.......the scameras are going

I wonder if he has speed camera wallpaper in his bedroom.

Hello soapboxdave and twobigdogs,

I apologise most profusely and sincerely for distressing both of you with my endless monotonous ramblings about speed cameras.
You are both quite right, it was most wrong of me to force you into to reading my many tedious diatribes on the subject.
I promise to stop putting you into armlocks and beating you about the head with stiffened copies of the Highway Code in order to make you read what I write.

I now apologise also for not having an IQ above that of an amoeba and, as a result, not realising that the subject-matter of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not speed cameras add to road safety, etc., etc., etc.
Now, I should like to give the two of you some help (think of it as free counselling) by suggesting very gently that you do not read any future posts headed: Rally, Bournemouth says...

soapboxdave wrote:

Rally wrote:

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

soapboxdave, 128 posts so far - 7 by me (including this one). You were saying... :)

Wow you took the time to count through all your posts, how boring. If you have so much time on your hands locate all the posts on this subject and read the previous comments you have made, repeatative would be an understatement. As I said before, the same old inane drivel, the same old comments, and your comments always turn this page into an argument with dorsetspeed. You him the same old questions when he makes a comment, are you sure you dont just copy and paste your previous comments, If you were to simply comment on the headline of this particular story which is, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, it would open up a whole new different debate instead of the boring old inane drivel that you post time after time. Why cant you agree to disagree with dorset speed, you absolutly love speed cameras and dorsetspeed is against them for his reasons, get a life and move on for goodness sake.

soapboxdave wrote: 'Wow you took the time to count through all your posts, how boring.'

You're absolutely right, soapboxdave, it was boring - but only for about 5 seconds.
Perhaps you don't know about IE8's Find on this Page function. :)

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote:

Rally wrote:

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

soapboxdave, 128 posts so far - 7 by me (including this one). You were saying... :)

Wow you took the time to count through all your posts, how boring. If you have so much time on your hands locate all the posts on this subject and read the previous comments you have made, repeatative would be an understatement. As I said before, the same old inane drivel, the same old comments, and your comments always turn this page into an argument with dorsetspeed. You him the same old questions when he makes a comment, are you sure you dont just copy and paste your previous comments, If you were to simply comment on the headline of this particular story which is, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, it would open up a whole new different debate instead of the boring old inane drivel that you post time after time. Why cant you agree to disagree with dorset speed, you absolutly love speed cameras and dorsetspeed is against them for his reasons, get a life and move on for goodness sake.

soapboxdave wrote: 'Wow you took the time to count through all your posts, how boring.' You're absolutely right, soapboxdave, it was boring - but only for about 5 seconds. Perhaps you don't know about IE8's Find on this Page function. :)

Hello soapboxdave, it's me again...
IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING?
Times certain words appear in this thread:
Speed cameras 69
Speeding 51
Safety 28
Accidents 11
Speed limit 49
And they're not all by me!!

Point is, soapboxdave, if you must have a go at me (which is okay with me), then at least get your basic facts right first - otherwise you are just relieving yourself in the wind. :)

dorsetspeed wrote:
Ok, you don't want people driving at more than a few mph over for any distance. You'd better start campaigning for the end of ineffective speed cameras, and for some proper effictive road policing instead.

LOL.
This puts me in mind of the 1961 song "There's a Hole in my Bucket". :)

caz-caz wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
caz-caz, I would have thought that in a truly 'modern car' you could have cruise control installed to ensure you didn't break the limit and yet didn't have to keep checking the speedo (not that it takes more than a split-second). Also, it's a poor driver indeed who is so intimidated by the speed of other traffic that they feel the need to drive faster. Given your remark about the police, it appears that you object to enforcement of speed limits by any means – unless used only against those travelling a bit faster than you?

leave it out ,i'm not a child i am very capable of driving sensibly and i dont expect to be spoken down to by some boy just out of short trousers who wasnt even born when i took my test - why do i resent that .... work it out for yourself - theres too much of this big brother nonsense from people no better than me and sometimes considerably worse

Driving sensibly, at 33% over the limit? That amounts to dangerous, antisocial behaviour and the policeman (no matter how young he was – what's that got to do with anything?) was perfectly right to castigate you. In my view, you should have to retake your test – you've obviously forgotten what the highway code says about speed limits.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Ok, you don't want people driving at more than a few mph over for any distance. You'd better start campaigning for the end of ineffective speed cameras, and for some proper effictive road policing instead.

How much is that going to cost? And how long will these officers be on patrol (operating 24 hours a day like speed cameras?)? And no, I don't expect a straight answer, since you couldn't even provide proper figures for your previous claim.
---
The fact is that with the removal of speed cameras, and no increase in traffic police (possibly fewer even), the level of enforcement is going to fall and therefore more people are going to speed and at higher levels. It's my guess from all your previous comments about the need to raise most speed limits and your criticism of traffic police that this is what you really wanted all along.

The Liberal, could you point me to where I said most limits need to be raised or where I criticised the traffic police (quotes in context please)? Speeds AT camera sites may increase but this is an insignificant proportion of the roads and respect may improve, the predicted bloodbath in Swindon simply didn’t happen. There will be a cost to proper policing. Shutting down the cameras and firing all the DRS staff would save quite a few million a year. If this can’t pay for a few traffic cops and cars, perhaps the police need a bit of help with using money wisely. Not to mention the reduced costs in hospitals etc. due to properly reduced accident counts.

dorsetspeed wrote:
The Liberal, could you point me to where I said most limits need to be raised or where I criticised the traffic police (quotes in context please)? Speeds AT camera sites may increase but this is an insignificant proportion of the roads and respect may improve, the predicted bloodbath in Swindon simply didn’t happen. There will be a cost to proper policing. Shutting down the cameras and firing all the DRS staff would save quite a few million a year. If this can’t pay for a few traffic cops and cars, perhaps the police need a bit of help with using money wisely. Not to mention the reduced costs in hospitals etc. due to properly reduced accident counts.

Shutting down the DRS might save the Treasury some money (although minus the loss in revenue from the cameras), but there's no guarantee it would ever find it's way back to the police to fund extra traffic officers. So the level of overall enforcement would be likely to fall.
 
Speed cameras may have only stopped some people from speeding at their location, but if those really were danger spots (and I admit that's not where all cameras are sited), there may be an increase in accidents in the LONG TERM. (Cherry-picking the example of Swindon over such a short time doesn't prove anything.)

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote:

twobigdogs wrote:

soapboxdave wrote:

Rally wrote:

soapboxdave wrote: Here we go again, another story hi-jacked and turned into the rally and dorsetspeed show.

And yet another asinine comment from soapboxdave that gets us nowhere.

Is this the end for static speed camera funding in Bournemouth? This was the headline for this story but you two have to hijack it yet again and turn it into an argument over who supports speed cameras and who doesn't. We all know your views, jesus christ you bleat on about it enough, and we all know dorsetspeeds views, the pair of you repeat the same old stuff day after day week after week, why cant you stick to the headline, IS THIS THE END FOR STATIC SPEED CAMERA FUNDING, all I can say is I hope so, then I wont have to read your drivel ever again.

I agree..............I think "rally" is on a mission to bore us half to death with his obsession with speed cameras! Get over it!.......the scameras are going

I wonder if he has speed camera wallpaper in his bedroom.

Hello soapboxdave and twobigdogs, I apologise most profusely and sincerely for distressing both of you with my endless monotonous ramblings about speed cameras. You are both quite right, it was most wrong of me to force you into to reading my many tedious diatribes on the subject. I promise to stop putting you into armlocks and beating you about the head with stiffened copies of the Highway Code in order to make you read what I write. I now apologise also for not having an IQ above that of an amoeba and, as a result, not realising that the subject-matter of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not speed cameras add to road safety, etc., etc., etc. Now, I should like to give the two of you some help (think of it as free counselling) by suggesting very gently that you do not read any future posts headed: Rally, Bournemouth says...

I would love to...........heres hoping!

The liberal, the fact that the government and councils can't use money correctly should not be used as a justification for the wrong road safety solutions. This is a part of what has to be challenged

dorsetspeed wrote:
The liberal, the fact that the government and councils can't use money correctly should not be used as a justification for the wrong road safety solutions. This is a part of what has to be challenged

But cuts are being made everywhere, including police funding. There is no money for extra traffic officers. Their numbers may even need to be reduced. In that case we'll be left with less policing of all motoring offences, not just speeding, which will not be good for road safety.

I suggested the million or so being spent on speed cameras in dorset should be spent on police instead. I don't accept that we can't afford either.

better idea, keep the camera's ( especially as the capital expenditure as has been made) and use the revenue they raise to increase police numbers ;-)

Seriously, I think that if the proceeds could be properly used, instead of boosting the lifestyles and egos of a few empire builders and jobsworths, it would not be nearly as bad

Its about time that Bournemouth too joined in with other towns in scrapping the Fixed Speed Cameras. What has ever happened with the old fashioned system of "A FAIR COP". If caught by a human being, a policeman/hand held camera, and NOT by one hidden in the back of a van, a bush, or even a haycart parked on the side of the road, not to mention one that was reported installed inside a council roadside refuse bin. I am one of the many people who was caught by the dreaded fixed speed cameras (36mph). The best thing that came out of that was being offered a place on the Drivers Awareness Course. This has really educated me in my driving. I was also allowed to tell others on the DAC of the effect that it had on me and how usefull the course was. So let's go back to the hand held speed camera policeman and if caught, pay the penalty price and be placed on the Drivers Awareness Course, if one does not accept these conditions, then they pay the full price including the points on their licence. The existing system of fixed speed cameras is greatly hated by the driving fraternity, it is a way of making money for the partnerships at a cost from councils that have them on their roads. Fixed cameras do cause deaths on the road when they are hidden behind a tree, etc. It has always been said a person can be killed by 15 to 20 mph so surely, speed is not the main factor but the education of the drivers at the wheel are.
DRIVERS AWARENESS SCHEME CAN IMPROVE THIS ALL BY INCLUDING A MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT COURSE FOR RE-OFFENDING DRIVERS.
Save lives, save money, read my report.

Len Brock.

I'm all for driver education when it comes to training people to negotiate a roundabout safely without crashing into the next lane or shunting the car in front, but there is a fundamental problem with driver awareness courses.
.
The first thing the trainer has to do is convince the trainees that a bunch of old duffers know more about setting speed limits than the DfT. That might be a problem.
.
Proper 30mph built up areas, OK, and limits that have been set according to circular 1/06, but it is wrong to attempt to brain wash people to ignore DfT guidance. They'll attend to keep the points off their licence, but will they believe what they are told?
.
A bit like attending a nautical navigation course and being told the world is flat.
.
Would anyone who runs such courses care to comment?

Jim_Springbourne wrote:
“Police officers with handheld guns can breathalyse drivers, they can stop people they suspect might not have tax or insurance, they can stop someone for tailgating. There are so many benefits.”

Hallelujah! At last, some sense being spoken. This is how the roads SHOULD be policed. Speed cameras can't detect any of the above offences.

Pardon me for not reading all 149 comments on this thread, but this cllr has got his head screwed on. Cameras and gnomes sitting in their vans have and always will be limited to detecting only one driving offense, a police officer can use his judgement to detect many more.

Regret have not read all earlier posts but article sounds like some final common sense to me! Congrats Bournemouth - hope the rest of Dorset will follow soon!