Brunstrom calling for increase in hidden cameras
Discussion
Ceefax has a report which says Brunstrom is calling on
Bliar to support a huge increase in speed traps and it says he also wants them to be hidden, not painted yellow as at present.
5200 speed trap sites (at least): deaths are at the highest level since 1998, so lets have more traps.
Who will save us from this man.
Bliar to support a huge increase in speed traps and it says he also wants them to be hidden, not painted yellow as at present.
5200 speed trap sites (at least): deaths are at the highest level since 1998, so lets have more traps.
Who will save us from this man.
He's totally out of touch with what ordinary people actually want.
I think he views speed cameras as an item of erotica, he certainly seems to get off on promoting them.
Poetic justice should come in the form of him having a coming together with one his "bastard" machines resulting in HIM being KSI.
A copper, a man, but above all a FOOL.
I think he views speed cameras as an item of erotica, he certainly seems to get off on promoting them.
Poetic justice should come in the form of him having a coming together with one his "bastard" machines resulting in HIM being KSI.
A copper, a man, but above all a FOOL.
Tafia said:
... Brunstrom ...
Who will save us from this man.
I will.
So how can we help add our voices?
Seriously? Send me money or raise money for me. I need full time staff!
Obviously making noise with politicians and newspapers and so on help a great deal as well. (As you are already doing of course!)
The boy's a fool! 
As for them not being hidden ---- talivans are already!
Is he getting rake off from those insurance companies? Some chap had hike up of £800 on a BMW for 3x 35mph from speed camera - allegedly!
And if he thinks they are saving lives .... one report says 100 lives saved at scam sites and another reveals death/injury toll is up overall! Utter prat! They do not prevent drunks - nor can they notice someone about to have heart attack and plough into someone either! Defective vehicle, no MOT? How pray can a speed camera detect one of those? Driving whilst disqualified, uninsured (more of those no doubt - and due to increased costs -- caused by his
scams placing it beyond budget - but heck - they need the car - so they would take chance on basis that "no trafpols around!"
Utter prat!
And then there is the rest .....
Apparently - he reckons that the Home Office is responsible for recent boobs made by police in recent high profile cases as well. Er:
were these contraptions not supposed to "free up police time so that they get time to do other police work properly?"
Cous' not noticed any extra coppers on the beat, any better services in fact - apart from useless comments such as the one above and his daft attitude to hard drugs. (Like "not very dangerous" and "offer on prescription via already stretched NHS" - funded of course by taxpayers!)
What a prat he is! And a disgrace to any police force!
As for them not being hidden ---- talivans are already! Is he getting rake off from those insurance companies? Some chap had hike up of £800 on a BMW for 3x 35mph from speed camera - allegedly!
And if he thinks they are saving lives .... one report says 100 lives saved at scam sites and another reveals death/injury toll is up overall! Utter prat! They do not prevent drunks - nor can they notice someone about to have heart attack and plough into someone either! Defective vehicle, no MOT? How pray can a speed camera detect one of those? Driving whilst disqualified, uninsured (more of those no doubt - and due to increased costs -- caused by his
scams placing it beyond budget - but heck - they need the car - so they would take chance on basis that "no trafpols around!" Utter prat!
And then there is the rest .....
Apparently - he reckons that the Home Office is responsible for recent boobs made by police in recent high profile cases as well. Er:
were these contraptions not supposed to "free up police time so that they get time to do other police work properly?" Cous' not noticed any extra coppers on the beat, any better services in fact - apart from useless comments such as the one above and his daft attitude to hard drugs. (Like "not very dangerous" and "offer on prescription via already stretched NHS" - funded of course by taxpayers!)
What a
prat he is! And a disgrace to any police force!The concept of concealed cameras is absolute nonsense.
If a section of road defined as dangerous (eg because of evidence that speeding has led to accidents) then put a ffing big camera there and make it luminous yellow with a flashing strob highlighting it. Result? Everyone sees it and drives through the designated dangerous area at or below the speed limit because they know they will get fined. Outcome? Safety.
On the other hand if you conceal the camera then some people will speed through the designated dangerous area and will get fined for exceeding the speed limit. Result the concealed camera did nothing to help create lower speeds in that section of road. Outcome? Drivers get fined and also pay higher insurance premiums - OK that's the punishment you take for failing to drive within the speed limit. But it did nothing to reduce traffic speed unless you got caught there previously or have seen it flash.
Why does this issue seem to be so devoid of common sense?
If a section of road defined as dangerous (eg because of evidence that speeding has led to accidents) then put a ffing big camera there and make it luminous yellow with a flashing strob highlighting it. Result? Everyone sees it and drives through the designated dangerous area at or below the speed limit because they know they will get fined. Outcome? Safety.
On the other hand if you conceal the camera then some people will speed through the designated dangerous area and will get fined for exceeding the speed limit. Result the concealed camera did nothing to help create lower speeds in that section of road. Outcome? Drivers get fined and also pay higher insurance premiums - OK that's the punishment you take for failing to drive within the speed limit. But it did nothing to reduce traffic speed unless you got caught there previously or have seen it flash.
Why does this issue seem to be so devoid of common sense?
I may be wrong but I thought he was perfectly entitled not to paint the cameras yellow. Of course that also means that all the money made by the cameras goes straight to the treasury.
However, if he feels so strongly that cameras work (which of course they don't) then the loss of all that revenue surely pales into insignificance with the lives he thinks they'll save? Or is he really more interested in the money?
However, if he feels so strongly that cameras work (which of course they don't) then the loss of all that revenue surely pales into insignificance with the lives he thinks they'll save? Or is he really more interested in the money?
hut49 said:
If a section of road defined as dangerous (eg because of evidence that speeding has led to accidents) then put a ffing big camera there and make it luminous yellow with a flashing strob highlighting it. Result? Everyone sees it and drives through the designated dangerous area at or below the speed limit because they know they will get fined. Outcome? Safety.
Result? In the case of drivers who don't know the area,panic braking when they spot the device - not always a safety contribution IMO!
busa_rush said:
He sounded like he was on some kind of trip, not a calm, sensible chap at all. Needs help. Hope he gets it soon.
Maybe we need to elect CCs ? That would be interesting.
Maybe he's been on the heroin?
*I am in no way suggesting Mr Brunstrom uses illegal narcotics, although heroin is obviously perfectly safe, so I don't suppose it would be a problem if he had...
hornet said:
Maybe he's been on the heroin?
*I am in no way suggesting Mr Brunstrom uses illegal narcotics, although heroin is obviously perfectly safe, so I don't suppose it would be a problem if he had...
Maybe he should try some of the "wonderful" product that he wants to be made freely available to all? You never know Bumstone, you might ACTUALLY make some
sense for once!nel said:
If a section of road defined as dangerous (eg because of evidence that speeding has led to accidents) then put a ffing big camera there and make it luminous yellow with a flashing strob highlighting it. Result? Everyone sees it and drives through the designated dangerous area at or below the speed limit because they know they will get fined. Outcome? Safety.
Result? In the case of drivers who don't know the area,panic braking when they spot the device - not always a safety contribution IMO!
If the camera was that obvious do them for driving without due care and attention too
The Local Authority and the Police in any area know where the accident spots are, and why they happen!
The least they can do is to warn drivers of these danger points and the nature of the threat by means of appropriate signs. But they don't!
All they do is erect a speed camera or trap (half hidden in the bushes) to catch motorists who are NOT aware of the existing historical danger (no warning signs) in order to make money from them.
IF, and I say again, IF, they are interested ONLY in Safety, then they would divert their attention to proper signing to alert drivers to known dangers instead of this drive for more and more revenue.
I'm increasingly thinking that Local Danger signs should be erected by liason between local Police & Council.
And, Direction signs should be decided by TOTAL strangers to the area, then, Local knowledge is NOT assumed.
That's if they are interested in Road Safety of course!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Sunday 27th June 04:09
The least they can do is to warn drivers of these danger points and the nature of the threat by means of appropriate signs. But they don't!
All they do is erect a speed camera or trap (half hidden in the bushes) to catch motorists who are NOT aware of the existing historical danger (no warning signs) in order to make money from them.
IF, and I say again, IF, they are interested ONLY in Safety, then they would divert their attention to proper signing to alert drivers to known dangers instead of this drive for more and more revenue.
I'm increasingly thinking that Local Danger signs should be erected by liason between local Police & Council.
And, Direction signs should be decided by TOTAL strangers to the area, then, Local knowledge is NOT assumed.
That's if they are interested in Road Safety of course!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Sunday 27th June 04:09
hut49 said:
The concept of concealed cameras is absolute nonsense.
If a section of road defined as dangerous (eg because of evidence that speeding has led to accidents) then put a ffing big camera there and make it luminous yellow with a flashing strob highlighting it. Result? Everyone sees it and drives through the designated dangerous area at or below the speed limit because they know they will get fined. Outcome? Safety.
On the other hand if you conceal the camera then some people will speed through the designated dangerous area and will get fined for exceeding the speed limit. Result the concealed camera did nothing to help create lower speeds in that section of road. Outcome? Drivers get fined and also pay higher insurance premiums - OK that's the punishment you take for failing to drive within the speed limit. But it did nothing to reduce traffic speed unless you got caught there previously or have seen it flash.
Why does this issue seem to be so devoid of common sense?
....Well said....
However the concept of hidden speed traps is nothing new.....
I was done for 44mph in a 30, by two BiB hiding behind a wall with a radar trap, in Bolton, way back in 1973!
Been lucky to keep out of trouble since though, I just drive slower these days, so I suppose these bloody cameras are having the desired effect...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff