Bugsy Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 I can't believe he did this...............................[:@]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6600995.stmIf you've never heard of this fool, check this outhttp://www.abd.org.uk/brunstrom.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1steveuk Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Having seen what this idiot has done in the past, I sadly can believe he did it. And people ask me why I want to move to France!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sid Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 He is a prat. I can't condone release of photos as in this case.However, his obsession is control of speeding. If you don't speed you shouldn't have anything to worry about.Sid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1steveuk Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 But didn't he get caught by one of his own cameras, and was never prosecuted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob T Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 The trouble with him is that he is not only anti speeding, as any copper should be, but totally anti motorcycles too. A year ago he complained, on his blog, about "noisy bikes" on a family trip to the lake district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 I'm sorry but its not the speed that kills, but careless driving. They are two different things in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winegum Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 [quote user="sid"]However, his obsession is control of speeding. If you don't speed you shouldn't have anything to worry about.Sid [/quote]But you should worry about pictures of your mangled body being shown without your family's consent if you get killed in his county.Jude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 I think the real issue here is less about Mr Brunstrom's decision to use a particuler image to illustrate the impact of road death in a closed, non-public and confidential briefing, but more about his failure to anticipate that one of the media jackals would use it to try and discredit him purely for media sensation - or should that read "purely for political purposes"?......[8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makfai Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 I have to disagree over what is the 'real issue'. The 'real issue' - I believe - is he showed the images to people who did not need professional access to the image (e.g for investigative purposes) and did so without a relative's consent.Brunstrom said: "The meeting was a closed one, to an invited audience of journalists and road safety professionals, all of whom had been warned in advance that they would be briefly exposed to harrowing images, in order that the media could better understand the full context of the Arrive Alive project"I would have thought that the road safety professionals and journalists could easily understand the 'context' of a fairly commonplace road safety inititiative without such tasteless theatricals. One can discuss fatalities with professionals without such shock tactics. In fact tactics of this nature are more likely to be seen by a professioanl audience as tasteless and unnecessary. They insult the intelligence and professionailsm of such an audience. The Arrive Alive project and its context is not difficult to understand - have a look at http://www.arrivealive.org.uk/home/. Whilst the actual initiatives may vary from Force to Force, the context of such inititiatives are well known in popular motoring/biking areas such as Yorkshire; Lancashire; Lakes; Durham; and Wales etc. It is interesting to note in regard to the Arrive Alive inititaive that: 'The programme is not about raising revenue, it’s about saving lives. Careful drivers who adhere to the speed limits will not fund the scheme; those who are caught exceeding the speed limit will not be stopped, but will be notified by post.'Any experienced police officer will tell you that to have the most impact those caught speeding SHOULD be stopped so that they can be spoken to at the time and not receive a NIP up to 14 days after the event.'All monies raised from the campaign can only go to fund additional cameras; members of the partnership cannot use it for any other purpose other than the Arrive Alive safety camera campaign.'ONLY fund cameras! The Government's own policy on cameras is under review based on credible research which cast doubt on its efficacy. The money would be better spent on training and education...Durham is reducing accidents by these tactics and not cameras and many partnerships are combining cameras with other tactics. There is a place in safety initiatives for cameras but for the whole emphasis of an inititaive to rest solely on them (as in this case) is blinkered. If the 'CONTEXT' of the inititaive is fully understood then it would not lead to the only tool being speed cameras. I suggest Brunstrom reviews the context without focusing on the theatricals. Retiring to darkened room now![blink] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brilec Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 [quote user="makfai"]'The programme is not about raising revenue, it’s about saving lives. Careful drivers who adhere to the speed limits will not fund the scheme; those who are caught exceeding the speed limit will not be stopped, but will be notified by post.'Any experienced police officer will tell you that to have the most impact those caught speeding SHOULD be stopped so that they can be spoken to at the time and not receive a NIP up to 14 days after the event.[/quote]But if they stop a speeding driver, he might not speed again, so they wouldn't be able to nick him twice.Got to think of the revenue you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 >>>I can't believe he did this...............................http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6600995.stmIf you've never heard of this fool, check this outhttp://www.abd.org.uk/brunstrom.htm<<< Yup he did! and it's not the first time he does such things to rub the public the wrong way... I live in the police authority next door to his patch and boy! there is not one week on the local news when his name doesn't come up with some daft subject or other... This one he certainly went to far! Inviting journalists and showing such clips (without the family's consent) in the firm belief that they will not boratcast what they've seen [8-)] c'mon!! It's like asking kiddies not to eat the sweets at the sweetie shop. However the message of that meeting was about speed and bikes. Seeing a photo like that one would make me sit up and think... But then I just don't like bikes. OH is trying his very best to make me ride pillion with him on his outings. No thank you, have a nice day, see you this evening. If I need to be bumped off the road, I'd rather have 4 wheels, side impacts, long bonnet in the front etc... to do it for extra stability/protection.... You'd guess right that I drive a Volvo.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I think the time has come to stop this obsession with cameras and the belief that they will force everybody to tow the line ...they will not.... and from what I have read more and more people are finding ways to avoid penalties from them. Registering your vehicle at another address to avoid being traced seems to be one .cloning the number plate another...I would like to see more Police stopping drivers who speed and drive recklessly and cheking them out.....It appears that we have in the UK thousands of vehicles on the road driven by people who have no licences and insurance many who have arrived in the UK probably believe they dont need them !....how many additional cameras ...and the showing of accident scene photos are going to get them off the road ? My sat nav tells me the location of every speed camera I pass and the designated location of the mobile ones as well ... and thousands of driveres have these now .......kind of defeats the object of still siting them doesnt it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Or you could do what the hunters do around here, and use your local speed camera for target practice.[6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I suspect the silent majority of the UK population would tend to disagree with your description of an obsession and are broadly in support of the enforcement of the speed limits. Anyone who seeks to avoid a lawful penalty by using a fraudulent address or false registration plate is unlikely to have any respect for the speed limits, so can't be considered as representative of the public wish for compliance. The idea of keeping the police focused on reckless driving and leaving the other speeders to the cameras has some merit.Regarding the thousands of unlicenced/uninsured drivers you mention, this requires a quite different approach to speed enforcement. ANPR cameras and police stop teams are pulling so many cars off the road for crushing that they're running out of space to store them all. Many forces have resorted to billing the owners with pre-destruction storage charges...Your SATNAV will display your speed as a helpful supplement to your speedometer, so if you aren't intending speed up (perhaps recklessly) between camera sites, then displaying their locations will be immaterial, won't it? The millions of us who don't have SATNAV and who don't get flashed when driving past a camera don't find it a problem....[;-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Anglia Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 [quote user="cooperlola"]Or you could do what the hunters do around here, and use your local speed camera for target practice.[6][/quote]Surely no-one would do that though? Or spray them with car underseal? Or paint? Or set fire to them? Or chop them down and nick the camera? Or nudge them with an artic trailer so they point skywards? Surely not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I'm sure they wouldn't do it once, let alone four times, Mr Anglia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Anglia Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 [quote user="cooperlola"]Or you could do what the hunters do around here, and use your local speed camera for target practice.[6][/quote]Surely no-one would do that though? Or spray them with car underseal? Or paint? Or set fire to them? Or chop them down and nick the camera? Or nudge them with an artic trailer so they point skywards? Surely not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Sorry, 5. How long are you going to keep this up?[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Sorry, 5. How long are you going to keep this up?[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socket Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 [quote user="cooperlola"]Sorry, 5. How long are you going to keep this up?[:D][/quote] Glad you pointed this out , I panicked , thought my eyesight had gone . First reactoin was to stop drinking , but now I can happily carry on ------------ Cheers cooperlola [B] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deauville Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 As long as Herr Brunstrom stays in the UK and we stay here in France and behave ourselves we shouldn't get TOO steamed up about him should we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Anglia Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Really sorry there, lads, (and any lasses), I THOUGHT it hadn't posted, since it just kept giving me a "Timed Out" error.Perhaps a passing mod could delete all but one?Stupid software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1steveuk Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 A mod, in a bikers forum???? blimey............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I'm doing my best .........If all the posts disappear I apologise in advance.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 [quote user="sid"]However, his obsession is control of speeding. If you don't speed you shouldn't have anything to worry about.Sid[/quote]Actually you have, a leading expert on safety cameras has demonstrated that you can get inaccurate readings due to the signal bouncing off vehicles it hits. He actually demonstrated the process by obtaining a speed reading from a stationary bus. A number of others have replicated this process as well. One guy was even charged (case thrown out) with doing a speed that his vehicle was totally incapable of ever achieving. I am sure you could probably google it......but back to your point, you do need to worry even if you THINK you are within the limit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now