'Constabulary' annoys Brunstrom (allegedly)
Discussion
I am told, but don't know for certain, that an article in January's edition of 'Constabulary' has greatly annoyed Brunstrom and there are many responses in the February edition.
Can any of our police friends enlighten us as to the content of the article and also tell us the tone of the responses.
Can any of our police friends enlighten us as to the content of the article and also tell us the tone of the responses.
Tafia said:
I am told, but don't know for certain, that an article in January's edition of 'Constabulary' has greatly annoyed Brunstrom and there are many responses in the February edition.
Can any of our police friends enlighten us as to the content of the article and also tell us the tone of the responses.
Constabulary magazine reprinted with permission this article that I wrote for the North Wales Daily Post:
www.safespeed.org.uk/begg.html
I shall be following up the follow ups with the approval and encouragement of the editor. I have not yet seen the follow ups, but I believe that Brunstrom may have been marshalling his supporters.
And yes, the editor told me directly that Brunstrom was very very annoyed. What a damn shame!
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
I enjoy winding Dickie up 
safespeed said:
Constabulary magazine reprinted with permission this article that I wrote for the North Wales Daily Post:
www.safespeed.org.uk/begg.html
Paul, remember I have never liked speed cameras, but also you have not yet convinced me of your arguments. But I must say this article is good. You are starting to seem credible, and let's face it that is what has been lacking and why the 'authorities' don't take you seriously.
Keep up the (good?) work!
andrew54 said:
Paul, remember I have never liked speed cameras, but also you have not yet convinced me of your arguments. But I must say this article is good. You are starting to seem credible, and let's face it that is what has been lacking and why the 'authorities' don't take you seriously.
Keep up the (good?) work!
Perhaps you should set aside a few hours and read the Safe Speed web site. Then perhaps you would discover why the authorities are taking me very seriously indeed. If in doubt, start here:
www.safespeed.org.uk/brunstrom4.html
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
The one question that should be asked is who makes the link between speed and collisions.
Most of the stats forms submitted are completed by mr average PC who actually knows very little about crash reconstruction or contributory factors.
It would be very easy to tick the odd box with 'speed related' collision factor when the only speed relationship is the fact that the vehicles were moving. Which in fairness can be the only arguement that can link the crash to speed.
Unless the collison has been investigated scientifically by someone who knows how to read impact damage, skid marks etc etc it is very difficult to predict or decide what anyone was doing.
The 'guiltless' driver would normally point the finger and say they were going so fast I didn't see them - so that must mean it is speed related then!!!
Since when does mr driver become an expert at visually calculating speed - especially when they probably only had half a second or so to do it.
That can lead to one of the major problems with statistices put garbage get garbage out.
Most of the stats forms submitted are completed by mr average PC who actually knows very little about crash reconstruction or contributory factors.
It would be very easy to tick the odd box with 'speed related' collision factor when the only speed relationship is the fact that the vehicles were moving. Which in fairness can be the only arguement that can link the crash to speed.
Unless the collison has been investigated scientifically by someone who knows how to read impact damage, skid marks etc etc it is very difficult to predict or decide what anyone was doing.
The 'guiltless' driver would normally point the finger and say they were going so fast I didn't see them - so that must mean it is speed related then!!!
Since when does mr driver become an expert at visually calculating speed - especially when they probably only had half a second or so to do it.
That can lead to one of the major problems with statistices put garbage get garbage out.
andrew54 said:
The one question that should be asked is who makes the link between speed and collisions.
The link is just common sense to most people. I'm not saying it is right, maybe not, but at first sight people going too fast will cause collisions.
I take it you're going for the bullshit of the year award.
Do you really have a driving licence?
stooz said:
"1/3 of accidents use inappropiate speed"
so shouldnt someone be working on the MAJORITY issue of the 2/3 that aren't speed related? surely a more important figure to be attacking?
The problem is that people will say that this is the easiest area to make a difference to the number of accidents. And yes they are probably right with those exact words... one third of accidents... in fact f**k it, I'll stick my neck out here... all accidents are caused by speed, without speed no accidents would or could possibly happen! But then again, without speed I couldn't get out m drive or even out of my bed in the morning, speed is measured as distance divided by time, hence anyyting that moves involves speed. So by that logic all crashes are accreditted to speed. That is the very reason they use that wording... it is 'not wrong'.
However, and this is the big point, that one third pish is just that...pish. They are using the fact that everyone puts speed and breaking the speed limit as one thing, whereas we all know that in fact only around 7% of 'accidents' can be actually put down to breaking the limit, the other 26% of speed related crashes are infact an inappropraite use of speed and would not actually be caught by cameras, but would be inproved by road training, and thats their biggest problem...this doesn't make them any money!
Richard
>> Edited by ricardo g on Sunday 8th February 21:58
andrew54 said:
The one question that should be asked is who makes the link between speed and collisions.
The link is just common sense to most people. I'm not saying it is right, maybe not, but at first sight people going too fast will cause collisions.
Well by definition those who are stationary will not have accidents, therefore the moment you start moving you going too fast!
However the correct definition should be that some accidents are caused by people going to fast for the conditions.
Speed cameras take no account of the conditions, unlike police officers, hince why people don;t like speed cameras.
andrew54 said:
The one question that should be asked is who makes the link between speed and collisions.
The link is just common sense to most people. I'm not saying it is right, maybe not, but at first sight people going too fast will cause collisions.
We all know that "too fast" causes accidents and is dangerous. It's fact.
But that sort of "too fast" cannot be defined by a speed limit. It has to do with the conditions. Speed limit are far too crude. I'd make a shrewd guess that out of the many millions of speed limit offences committed every day all over the country, less than 0.1% are potentially dangerous.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
chrisgr31 said:
The one question that should be asked is who makes the link between speed and collisions.
The link is just common sense to most people. I'm not saying it is right, maybe not, but at first sight people going too fast will cause collisions.
Well by definition those who are stationary will not have accidents, therefore the moment you start moving you going too fast!
However the correct definition should be that some accidents are caused by people going to fast for the conditions.
Speed cameras take no account of the conditions, unlike police officers, hince why people don't like speed cameras.
I think the Scamera partnerships view the correct speed for the conditions as being the speed limit. Certainly my reading of Mr Brunstrom's views is that "inappropriate speed" is anything over the speed limit. This is the whole point of the police's approach to speed now -- don't think for yourself, we've already done it for you.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff