This man is dangerous!
Discussion
He's dangerously mixing the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) capture rates with Talivan speeding figures.
This can be blatently exposed by the media if they are reading this.
He is suggesting that the same people who drive around with uninsured, untaxed, un MOT'd cars easily captured by the very succesful ANPR systems, are the same ones who are speeders. Yes these people really don't care, drive drugged up, do speed excessively as they having nothing to lose & are also the majorority of accident causers too. the figures re Drugged Fatals will prove that point.
He's trying to manipulate the media with honest ANPR figures making out that every motorist who "Speeds" is in the same league.
This is very dangerous ground he's standing on, trying to corrupt & confuse the public into thinking every "speeder" is a criminal. Obviously you can catch more "Criminals" if you reduce the limits even further.
Let's push to expose this tactic in public.
This can be blatently exposed by the media if they are reading this.
He is suggesting that the same people who drive around with uninsured, untaxed, un MOT'd cars easily captured by the very succesful ANPR systems, are the same ones who are speeders. Yes these people really don't care, drive drugged up, do speed excessively as they having nothing to lose & are also the majorority of accident causers too. the figures re Drugged Fatals will prove that point.
He's trying to manipulate the media with honest ANPR figures making out that every motorist who "Speeds" is in the same league.
This is very dangerous ground he's standing on, trying to corrupt & confuse the public into thinking every "speeder" is a criminal. Obviously you can catch more "Criminals" if you reduce the limits even further.
Let's push to expose this tactic in public.
I see a huge rise in car ringing on the horizon!
I for one will be cutting an MDF steering wheel and fitting in in the passenger seat alond with some nice French number plates. see, there are some advantages to living 5mins from the Chunnel.
Seriously, this is more than worrying. I feel so angry but am totally powerless to do anything, this numbskull was not elected to his position so why does he feel he can talk for the populus?
UNBELIEVABLE!
Oh, and even my GPS has a time delay and that's a lot more accurate than my speedo, I think the answer is that we must use and abuse our cars now because in 10-15yrs time we just won't be allowed too.
Tim
I for one will be cutting an MDF steering wheel and fitting in in the passenger seat alond with some nice French number plates. see, there are some advantages to living 5mins from the Chunnel.
Seriously, this is more than worrying. I feel so angry but am totally powerless to do anything, this numbskull was not elected to his position so why does he feel he can talk for the populus?
UNBELIEVABLE!
Oh, and even my GPS has a time delay and that's a lot more accurate than my speedo, I think the answer is that we must use and abuse our cars now because in 10-15yrs time we just won't be allowed too.
Tim
Wacky Racer said:
From the Times again.........
Mr Brunstrom said that he also wanted to see cameras placed on roads where there was no history of crashes.
As we eliminate crash hotspots we are going to have to look elsewhere to reduce casualties."
How can you reduce casualties, when there hasn't been any in the first place????
The man is a prize plonker!!!!
Another version of this story here:
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/content_objectid=13736433_method=full_siteid=50142_headline=-Brunstrom%2Dpromises%2Dmore%2Dspeed%2Dcameras-name_page.html
On the same page, his spin doctor also claims a reduction of 35% ( in what is not specified) but the piece also says N Wales casualties were down by 43 to 3647.
That looks like 1.1% to me , not 35%
Note how Brunstrom says, "We need to change our style as they are not all dying at accident hotspots"
Accidents are random events not produced on a conveyor belt? Well I never!
SGirl said:
Mr Brunstrom said that all forces should have the option of allowing a driver to attend a road safety course rather than receive three points for a speeding offence. At present only a handful of forces offer such courses and there is no national policy.
Now this is a good idea. Surely more productive than "hand us your cash - and your licence"?
Why isn't it offered nationally? The way things are going, with present policy all 32 million UK drivers will have some kind of conviction for speeding before long. People are losing their jobs and families over this (that's my bit of thinkofthechildrenism for today!), and are they learning anything?
In a word, no.
And while we're on the subject, why not introduce a road safety scheme whereby someone goes into schools and tells the kiddywinks about how to cross roads? Oh, and not to play on the roads! Don't get me started on this one though...
>> Edited by SGirl on Thursday 18th December 10:48
It could me made into a good idea, but at present like everything from the lentlists, it is garbage. Ask yourself how long would you tolerate sitting in a classroom listening to the lies and skewed stats that we regularly ridicule here?
SGirl said:
Ian964 said:
Mr Brunstrom said that all forces should have the option of allowing a driver to attend a road safety course rather than receive three points for a speeding offence. At present only a handful of forces offer such courses and there is no national policy.
Now this is a good idea. Surely more productive than "hand us your cash - and your licence"?
Why isn't it offered nationally? The way things are going, with present policy all 32 million UK drivers will have some kind of conviction for speeding before long. People are losing their jobs and families over this (that's my bit of thinkofthechildrenism for today!), and are they learning anything?
In a word, no.
And while we're on the subject, why not introduce a road safety scheme whereby someone goes into schools and tells the kiddywinks about how to cross roads? Oh, and not to play on the roads! Don't get me started on this one though...
>> Edited by SGirl on Thursday 18th December 10:48
Can't agree that drivers need re-training for driving at 36 in a 30 in perfectly safe circumstances. A chum was caught doing 36 in 30 going downhill on a wide road into Old Colwyn, N Wales.
This road has wide verges, a high wall on one side, he had his cruise set to 30 but of course, in his large luxury car, he had to stand on the brakes to try to keep to 30. Unfortunately he drifted over the limit and was nicked.
A couple of miles away in Colwyn Bay, the decent local folks can't walk the streets in safety because druggies have been invited by local landlords to "Come and spend your Giro by the sea", so the area is infested with scum. What is Brunstrom doing about that?
>> Edited by Tafia on Thursday 18th December 11:22
Tafia said:
Can't agree that drivers need re-training for driving at 36 in a 30 in perfectly safe circumstances. A chum was caught doing 36 in 30 going downhill on a wide road into Old Colwyn, N Wales.
I know the road you mean. For sure, it's very difficult to keep to 30 down there simply because of the slope! But then again, how many people do you see every day doing 36 in 30s because that's the speed they were doing through the NSL 2 minutes before and they can't be bothered slowing down? These are the people who need to be educated.
If someone offered you 3 points or a road safety course, which would you go for? Half a day of propaganda and "thou shalt not speed", or one step closer towards losing your licence? I know which I'd prefer.
It'd be nice if the courses actually involved people being taught to drive properly though, wouldn't it?
regmolehusband said:Come get me Brunstrom!!!
Remove Brunstrom
I can just see the headlines tomorrow "Top Chief Constable receives death threats from motoring enthusiasts"It seems these are the sort of tactics these people use to discredit the ordinary person that has a different viewpoint from theirs.
plotloss said:Well, probably! Have you never taken a paper-clip or sheet of paper home from work ... that was the property of your employer (the always self-employed and always non-employed do not need to answer this)? That is theft and a criminal offence. One probably committed in some form or another by just about every employee in the country. The fact is that it comes down to what is acceptable ... to the owner (in this case the employer) and the taker (thief, ie. you ... and me).
Several studies have shown that people who commit motoring offences are more likely than others to be involved in other illegal activity.
What complete and utter shit!
There isnt a single one of the 30 million license holders in this nation that hasnt exceeded the speed limit at some point.
So the UK is a nation of criminals then Richard?
...
Just a thought.
Streaky
Let's put a bit of positive spin on this.
Perhaps for him to champion this is just what we need. It will cause such a backlash from the ordinary driver that it will clog up the courts as more people don't take it lying down, it will further damage Brunstroms reputation and the reputations of his supporters, it will not reduce accidents and it will further evidence what a complete and utter scam the entire cash-camera schemes are.
The politicians will fear the loss of votes as the Conservatives will undoubtedly see gains from opposing it.
Or perhaps I'm totally wrong.
Perhaps for him to champion this is just what we need. It will cause such a backlash from the ordinary driver that it will clog up the courts as more people don't take it lying down, it will further damage Brunstroms reputation and the reputations of his supporters, it will not reduce accidents and it will further evidence what a complete and utter scam the entire cash-camera schemes are.
The politicians will fear the loss of votes as the Conservatives will undoubtedly see gains from opposing it.
Or perhaps I'm totally wrong.
Blunkett (and Alistair Darling) must already be wishing that this issue goes away soon. It is manifest from the media that the man in the street is switching on to the fact that he's being done over by zealots like Brunstrom and is also (seemingly) quite a bit smarter than Brunstrom as he can make a value judgement by resorting to facts, not emotions.
Why don't we all write to Blunkett asking what his opinion of Brunstrom is and invite him to stand by the dolt and his baseless ranting or accept that the facts don't tally with Brunstrom's model of the universe. As Keynes famously said to Boothby, "When I find that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" Let's see if Blunkett is as great a statesman as Keynes. I doubt it.
Why don't we all write to Blunkett asking what his opinion of Brunstrom is and invite him to stand by the dolt and his baseless ranting or accept that the facts don't tally with Brunstrom's model of the universe. As Keynes famously said to Boothby, "When I find that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" Let's see if Blunkett is as great a statesman as Keynes. I doubt it.
Ian964 said:
Mr Brunstrom told the Commons Transport Select Committee: "The guidelines are going to have to be loosened. As we exhaust cash hotspots we are going to have to look elsewhere to raise revenue."
That's what he meant to say...
>> Edited by Teppic on Thursday 18th December 16:50
Cooperman said:
Let's put a bit of positive spin on this.
Perhaps for him to champion this is just what we need. It will cause such a backlash from the ordinary driver that it will clog up the courts as more people don't take it lying down, it will further damage Brunstroms reputation and the reputations of his supporters, it will not reduce accidents and it will further evidence what a complete and utter scam the entire cash-camera schemes are.
The politicians will fear the loss of votes as the Conservatives will undoubtedly see gains from opposing it.
Or perhaps I'm totally wrong.
You got it, the man is a loose cannon and will trip himself up very shortly.
puggit said:
puggit said:
Remove Brunstrom
I can just see the headlines tomorrow "Top Chief Constable receives death threats from motoring enthusiasts"
Come get me Brunstrom!!!
carefull another times artical on the way
zumbruk said:But that's down to the recently introduced (can't remember just which year though) construction and use regulations for a new vehicle. Once you have worn tyres or replacement tyres etc etc this can alter the reading of the speedo.
Judging by the accuracy of an average cars speedo I see a lot of people will be more familiar with the abbreviation that is NIP!
EVERY car before that could have a speedo that underreads at some speed. There have been a number of motoring programs that have shown how wildly inaccurate car speedo's are. These inaccuracies are only likely to increase with age and with changes to the vehicle. As mentioned above even a different make/model of tyre can change the reading due to a slight difference in size. Also worn tyres with give further differences.
Just ask anyone with a GPS system that will give true speed how far out their speedo's are.
Cooperman said:Just pointing out that A. not all cars on the road do overread and B. The manufacturers cannot actually guarantee the car meets the C&U once the customer has it. C. There could also be a manufaturing error as I bet very few cars are actually speed tested against a gun or GPS, before being sold, to prove the speedo's are within the limit - at best they will test a few percent.
But they always over-read unless you fit oversize and/or non-recommended tyres, which would be your own responsibility.
icamm said:AFAIHS - all reports from GPS owners are that the speedo overreads ... even at a GPS indicated 30mph.
Judging by the accuracy of an average cars speedo I see a lot of people will be more familiar with the abbreviation that is NIP!
Speedos are designed to over-read ... so accuracy should not be an issue. See also: <a href="http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=0&t=72339"><a href="http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=0&t=72339"><a href="http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=0&t=72339">www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=0&t=72339</a></a></a>
not at 30 they dont, they are more likely to UNDER read.
It is illegal for speedos to underread. The legal limits are +10% -0%.
But that's down to the recently introduced (can't remember just which year though) construction and use regulations for a new vehicle. Once you have worn tyres or replacement tyres etc etc this can alter the reading of the speedo.
EVERY car before that could have a speedo that underreads at some speed. There have been a number of motoring programs that have shown how wildly inaccurate car speedo's are. These inaccuracies are only likely to increase with age and with changes to the vehicle. As mentioned above even a different make/model of tyre can change the reading due to a slight difference in size. Also worn tyres with give further differences.
Just ask anyone with a GPS system that will give true speed how far out their speedo's are.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff