Dorset speed camera thresholds
Discussion
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Sounds like they want to fine more people.
Now the question is why ?
Because Bournemouth has a Lib Dem councill that hates motorists. They need higher revenue to finance more bus lanes, look at the fing mes they have made of castle lane.....
W
And Castle Lane is going to get worse when the new roadworks for the shopping centre in the bus depot start.
As for the thresholds ... well Dorset is obsessed with cameras so its no surprise ... cameras that do nothing for road safety as deaths in Dorset on the roads continue to rise.
funkyrobot said:Started to reply ... but couldn't be 4r5ed. I was taught by my father that it's not fair to fight an intellectual battle with someone who isn't equipped to defend themself - Streaky
tonto said:
Sounds like they want to fine more people.
Now the question is why ?
Insufficient revenue I guess.
That's exactly what would happen throughout the country if everyone were to copy that Funky chap's method of "fighting back".
Yes but my method of fighting back wouldn't just be slowing down, that would only be the start of it.
People slowing down will still result in accidents and we know this. However, as the accidents are still happening at slower speeds then even more people should note that speed isn't the sole factor in causing accidents.
The way things are going though nothing we seem to do has any effect on the partnerships rolling our more cameras.
You say keep speeding. Well this just costs you money and keeps the coffers coming in for the partnerships. I say slow down and stop paying them, but you say that this will lead to reduced speeds and even more 'persecution' of the motorist.
Tell me one thing though. If my method is so stupid and won't work, what has your method done to improve the situation??? All I am seeing is more speed cameras in more ridiculous places, more fines and points for people, and more fuel for the 'speed causes accidents' fire.
Enlighten me please. What has the method of carrying on speeding done to solve any issues with speed cameras??
Does anybody think we motorists CAN actually do anything about this?
hedders said:
No, now go away.
You have now made your point, you can leave.
It's an irrelevant point anyway
edited for wordiness.
>> Edited by hedders on Thursday 28th April 15:52
It isn't an irrellevant point at all is it?
The whole safety camera system sprang from the report that said that there was a link between average speed and KSI collisions.
Petrol headed numpties have continued to speed in between safety camera sites with their new anti-camera tactics supported by their camera detection toys in the mistaken knowledge that their driving skills are sooooo cool that they are immune from accidents and somehow cameras are causing people to skew off the road or collide. {breath in}
As Funky says, continuing to speed and speed tactically will not reduce the number of cameras, how could it? It will increase mobile camera presence in my opinion.
Give Funky's idea a go, you never know, it just might work.
"how can removing or reducing a 3% causation factor reduce accidents"? This is the irrellevant point and it is repeated time and again in an attempt to detract from the reduction of average speed of traffic. Reducing excess and excessive speed will reduce the average speed of traffic.
I say agaoin it will work by reducing the average speed of traffic overall dear boy. Now give it a go and stop yer winging, you otherwise law abiding person you! {another stupid but popular saying}
>> Edited by destroyer on Thursday 28th April 21:23
parrot of doom said:
funkyrobot said:
Regardless of my alleged speed fixation, please can you tell me what ignoring speed limits and continuing to speed has solved???
I don't see less cameras on the road.
Stop being a muppet, and
Because its right, and you all know it, you just don't like it!!
Once again this forum of brilliant drivers ends up turning into a pit of abuse because somebody doesn't like the comments. Good job the moderators enforce the forum rules to cut out pointless abuse isn't it.
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 28th April 21:47
destroyer said:
No, now go away.
You have now made your point, you can leave.
It's an irrelevant point anyway
edited for wordiness.
>> Edited by hedders on Thursday 28th April 15:52
It isn't an irrellevant point at all is it?
The whole safety camera system sprang from the report that said that there was a link between average speed and KSI collisions.
Petrol headed numpties have continued to speed in between safety camera sites with their new anti-camera tactics supported by their camera detection toys in the mistaken knowledge that their driving skills are sooooo cool that they are immune from accidents and somehow cameras are causing people to skew off the road or collide. {breath in}
As Funky says, continuing to speed and speed tactically will not reduce the number of cameras, how could it? It will increase mobile camera presence in my opinion.
Give Funky's idea a go, you never know, it just might work.
"how can removing or reducing a 3% causation factor reduce accidents"? This is the irrellevant point and it is repeated time and again in an attempt to detract from the reduction of average speed of traffic. Reducing excess and excessive speed will reduce the average speed of traffic.
I say agaoin it will work by reducing the average speed of traffic overall dear boy. Now give it a go and stop yer winging, you otherwise law abiding person you! {another stupid but popular saying}
>> Edited by destroyer on Thursday 28th April 21:23
Thankyou! Someone sees sense!!
streaky said:
james_j said:
tonto said:
Sounds like they want to fine more people.
Now the question is why ?
Insufficient revenue I guess.
That's exactly what would happen throughout the country if everyone were to copy that Funky chap's method of "fighting back".
Yes but my method of fighting back wouldn't just be slowing down, that would only be the start of it.
People slowing down will still result in accidents and we know this. However, as the accidents are still happening at slower speeds then even more people should note that speed isn't the sole factor in causing accidents.
The way things are going though nothing we seem to do has any effect on the partnerships rolling our more cameras.
You say keep speeding. Well this just costs you money and keeps the coffers coming in for the partnerships. I say slow down and stop paying them, but you say that this will lead to reduced speeds and even more 'persecution' of the motorist.
Tell me one thing though. If my method is so stupid and won't work, what has your method done to improve the situation??? All I am seeing is more speed cameras in more ridiculous places, more fines and points for people, and more fuel for the 'speed causes accidents' fire.
Enlighten me please. What has the method of carrying on speeding done to solve any issues with speed cameras??
Does anybody think we motorists CAN actually do anything about this?
Started to reply ... but couldn't be 4r5ed. I was taught by my father that it's not fair to fight an intellectual battle with someone who isn't equipped to defend themself - Streaky
Just like most of the others you know I am totally right and you just can't hack this.
Easy to hide behind an excuse isn't it!
deltafox said:
Funky- destroyer is a scameraship manager, he's bound to say what youre hoping to hear. Its in his interest.
Hes also full of crap and a sore loser.
I don't lose often and I support Funky's opinion.
It looks, from the abuse it is attracting and absolutely fek all sensible opposition, that your logic is all washed up and out of petrol.
You usually do slightly better than playground banter.
parrot of doom said:
Regardless of my alleged speed fixation, please can you tell me what ignoring speed limits and continuing to speed has solved???
I don't see less cameras on the road.
Stop being a muppet, and
come on polly! that's no better than a squawk!
Answer the man sensibly.
destroyer, when drivers have slowed to 40mph because of an excess of cameras and persecution do you then feel it necessary to lower the limit to 30 mph and set the trigger down accordingly. We all know that this has happened nationwide, at least where scamera partnerships are active,......... not in others.
What next old man? 20 mph? Or do we all have to walk, because it's faster.
Oh sorry! we'd have 4 mph cameras then wouldn't we?
P.S. who wanted to go to Dorset anyway? I wouldn't, not now!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 29th April 00:16
What next old man? 20 mph? Or do we all have to walk, because it's faster.
Oh sorry! we'd have 4 mph cameras then wouldn't we?
P.S. who wanted to go to Dorset anyway? I wouldn't, not now!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 29th April 00:16
funkyrobot said:
hedders said:
No, now go away.
You have now made your point, you can leave.
It's an irrelevant point anyway
edited for wordiness.
>> Edited by hedders on Thursday 28th April 15:52
It isn't an irrellevant point at all is it?
The whole safety camera system sprang from the report that said that there was a link between average speed and KSI collisions.
Petrol headed numpties have continued to speed in between safety camera sites with their new anti-camera tactics supported by their camera detection toys in the mistaken knowledge that their driving skills are sooooo cool that they are immune from accidents and somehow cameras are causing people to skew off the road or collide. {breath in}
As Funky says, continuing to speed and speed tactically will not reduce the number of cameras, how could it? It will increase mobile camera presence in my opinion.
Give Funky's idea a go, you never know, it just might work.
"how can removing or reducing a 3% causation factor reduce accidents"? This is the irrellevant point and it is repeated time and again in an attempt to detract from the reduction of average speed of traffic. Reducing excess and excessive speed will reduce the average speed of traffic.
I say agaoin it will work by reducing the average speed of traffic overall dear boy. Now give it a go and stop yer winging, you otherwise law abiding person you! {another stupid but popular saying}
>> Edited by destroyer on Thursday 28th April 21:23
Thankyou! Someone sees sense!!
Funky chirpy chap
Old bean... he sees sense because he's JJ, Stteve Callahgn or Kevin Tea.... these blokes hide their vans in foliage in my part of the world, hire heareses for the day and hand out carnations in the market place - only they handed them to the grieving widow of one of my patients who was not very happy...
Her husband did not die in a car crash. He died because I could not cure him - because he waited too long to see me... because we do not invest properly in NHS and thes people have to wait to see me as a result.
On the day after she buried him - they were smirking around Kendal with their hearse telling people this was the major cause of death in the area...
And it isn't!
Of course - he thinks I am annoyed at being reminded of consequences of driving fast..
Steve even scoffed at COAST to some members of this family on his own forum. He closed it down when awkward questions were asked....
He forgets of course that neighbouring Lancs actually teach this on Speed Awares and DIS schemes .... and have to admit that there are slightly improved stats from them since they opened up scheme and offered it to above just overs...
But really -he'd do better to follow the fine examples of N Yorks and Durham....
But chirps old bean -you should know this from your run-ins with me, IG, Paul, Observer et al on Paulie's site
destroyer said:
Funky- destroyer is a scameraship manager, he's bound to say what youre hoping to hear. Its in his interest.
Hes also full of crap and a sore loser.
I don't lose often and I support Funky's opinion.
You sure as heck run away from my wife though
Not seen you on Paulie's site either. Ross the Aussie hoon is still waiting for an answer by the way
[quote]
You usually do slightly better than playground banter.[/quote]
Ah... JJ - the ex- primary school teacher..
Bet my twins chased you out of the classroom.. They have this effect on lentilists....
Funky chirpy chap - old bean.
If they are reducing the threshold limit of 10% + 2 // it means drivers have complied to this margin.
If they now reduce this margin - they are not compying with guidelines and the fact that they are lowering threshold means that they are short of cash.
In time this means that they will adopt zero tolerance and keep reducing speed limits unitl driving is less than walking pace.
Basically - reducing a tolerance proves it's about revenue and not about safety at all.
But ... people will still die and we will prove as a result that this is nothing remotelty safety-related.
Cost to society?
People lose jobs, distribution of everything (including the parts to my lovely racing bike amd mine cost more than yours and I sheeled out over £700 for lights ... so nananananannananananaana!
)
Economy goes pear shaped and we will take years to recover. Also - people will not get to hospitalany quicker in ambulance as very slow moving traffic will be impeding all progress. Crime will be at all time high as police will be in similar boat and fore crew will not be able to reach burning houses let alone rescue my wife when she gets stuck up a tree again... Long story - but Wildy climbed a tree in Switzerland and got her hair tangled up in the branches 
If they are reducing the threshold limit of 10% + 2 // it means drivers have complied to this margin.
If they now reduce this margin - they are not compying with guidelines and the fact that they are lowering threshold means that they are short of cash.
In time this means that they will adopt zero tolerance and keep reducing speed limits unitl driving is less than walking pace.
Basically - reducing a tolerance proves it's about revenue and not about safety at all.
But ... people will still die and we will prove as a result that this is nothing remotelty safety-related.
Cost to society?
People lose jobs, distribution of everything (including the parts to my lovely racing bike amd mine cost more than yours and I sheeled out over £700 for lights ... so nananananannananananaana!
) Economy goes pear shaped and we will take years to recover. Also - people will not get to hospitalany quicker in ambulance as very slow moving traffic will be impeding all progress. Crime will be at all time high as police will be in similar boat and fore crew will not be able to reach burning houses let alone rescue my wife when she gets stuck up a tree again...
Long story - but Wildy climbed a tree in Switzerland and got her hair tangled up in the branches Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff