This man is dangerous!
Discussion
plotloss said:
He's knackered his own argument then in that case.
If this is true, if speed leads directly to rape, cannabis to heroin and wine gums to absinthe then how in the wide wide world of sports are camera triggering speed going to help at all?
Can you section someone without them being present?
So his family are now rapists, drugdealersand gunrunners (?) etc as by his own words his daughter who is a speeder falls into the frare then??? Sarcasm?!?
Cynical? ME???
puggit said:
He says he used to speed - I'm sure you won't catch him doing it now as he would certainly lose his job.
He doesn't normally drive himself.
When on offical business, unlike the Full Monty chaps, he takes his hat off and sits in the back of his silver MB estate (140 mph jobby, with cruise) whilst his driver carries him off.
So I am told.........
I visited a chap at his home in North Wales a month or so ago. I didn't know him or what he did for a living, but I noticed that he had a BMW bike in his garage. I asked him if he used it much and he said that he rode it to work in Liverpool most days, but that he wouldn't use it on Welsh roads because of the police's obsession with speeding. He also said that Richard Brunstrom had "lost the plot", and that the Arrive Alive" campaign was a revenue raising excercise and had nothing to do with road safety.
Turns out this chap was a Superintendant in the Merseyside police force!
So, it's not just us that think he's s tosser!
Turns out this chap was a Superintendant in the Merseyside police force!
So, it's not just us that think he's s tosser!
welsh blackbird said:Nice one
I visited a chap at his home in North Wales a month or so ago. I didn't know him or what he did for a living, but I noticed that he had a BMW bike in his garage. I asked him if he used it much and he said that he rode it to work in Liverpool most days, but that he wouldn't use it on Welsh roads because of the police's obsession with speeding. He also said that Richard Brunstrom had "lost the plot", and that the Arrive Alive" campaign was a revenue raising excercise and had nothing to do with road safety.
Turns out this chap was a Superintendant in the Merseyside police force!
So, it's not just us that think he's s tosser!
But how did he get the bike out of Wales?!
We've been to North Wales several times of late, and we've had lots of fun "making progress" around the roads - one of us drives, the other keeps eyes peeled for Talivans.
But where are all these scameras? Are they all on the A5 and the Conwy trunk road, or what? Do they only operate 9-5? They certainly weren't in the places we went to. I know this 'cos I still have my nice, shiny licence.
But where are all these scameras? Are they all on the A5 and the Conwy trunk road, or what? Do they only operate 9-5? They certainly weren't in the places we went to. I know this 'cos I still have my nice, shiny licence.
Brunstrom said:
In future drivers can expect to be prosecuted at 33mph in a 30mph zone, Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales and head of road policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said.
Cameras are now triggered only at 35mph, but Mr Brunstrom said that forces were under pressure from road safety groups “to enforce closer to the limit”. The 35mph threshold was chosen for the margin of error in the equipment. Acpo is conducting a review, to be completed within six months, which he expected would approve a lower cutoff.
Every mile per hour above 30mph added to the risk of death or serious injury in a collision, the chief constable said. He hoped that the threshold could be lowered to 33mph during 2004.
IMHO, in the old days, even those rabidly pro-cameras considered that it was highly illegal speeds that were the danger, not 33 in a 30. So how have we got to the point where 33 is as dangerous as 60 in a 30? The stats on percentage of children being killed at 35 vs 30, I guess. Where are these stats from? I have no idea, they just seem to have appeared from nowhere. I think we should push to have the data made available.
Another point. Why is he giving in to "pressure" from one side of the argument but not the other? A public servant with a balanced attitude would weigh up all sides of the argument before acting, and would himself naturally appear unbiased in all his dealings with the public.
Like all the others with similar views to him (Transport 2000, Brake et al) he believes that the rest of us are wrong not him and that he must educate the masses.
The man is an idiot. People are more interested in clearing up real crime. The North Wales Police are incapable of that - isn't their rate about 6 % on things like burgulary?
The man is an idiot. People are more interested in clearing up real crime. The North Wales Police are incapable of that - isn't their rate about 6 % on things like burgulary?
Peter Ward said:Because that's what happens. For example, the ASA have pulled an advertisement because 570 people complained about it. No-one ever writes to the ASA to say, "What a great advert." No, they only write to complain. I wonder whether the ASA would reinstate the advertisement if 571 people wrote saying it didn't offend them? The silent majority has to stop being silent, otherwise the vocal, incredibly small minority will get their way.
...
Another point. Why is he giving in to "pressure" from one side of the argument but not the other? A public servant with a balanced attitude would weigh up all sides of the argument before acting, and would himself naturally appear unbiased in all his dealings with the public.
Reminds me of the Biblical saying, "The meek shall inherit the Earth." The problem is that a tiny few are contesting the will!
Streaky, your right. Everytime you hear about the ASA banning an advert there usually only a few complaints.
This is very silly when you consider that it means the majority of the people who have viewed the advert were either "not offended" or only "slightly offended" but not enough to complain. A tiny minority can affect the majority in a big way in these cases.
Although the ASA do atleast turn down some complaints.
This is very silly when you consider that it means the majority of the people who have viewed the advert were either "not offended" or only "slightly offended" but not enough to complain. A tiny minority can affect the majority in a big way in these cases.
Although the ASA do atleast turn down some complaints.
Just for info, the ASA assesses adverts against a published code. It only takes one complaint for them to start the assessment process. So it's not a case of "giving in to the minority" but rather being alerted to a potential problem advert. See www.asa.org.uk/complain/index.asp.
I suppose you could argue that Brunstrom is assessing people against the published code of "the law" that says the limit is the limit and anything over it is illegal. The reason why our ire should be aimed at Government rather than police -- even that nice Mr Brunstrom?
I suppose you could argue that Brunstrom is assessing people against the published code of "the law" that says the limit is the limit and anything over it is illegal. The reason why our ire should be aimed at Government rather than police -- even that nice Mr Brunstrom?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff