Brunstrom must now resign says Safe Speed
14 March 2005, 12:03 PM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Brunstrom must now resign says Safe Speed
Brunstrom must now resign says Safe Speed
The Sunday Mirror reports that Chief Constable Brunstrom - the man most responsible for speed camera policy - has declared that:
"Enough's enough, speed cameras aren't cutting road deaths". Safe Speed has been pointing this out since 2002 - Brunstrom's statement is years late.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Halting the expansion of speed cameras isn't enough. If the scheme worked expansion would work. The fact is that the negative side effects of speed cameras are GREATER than the potential benefits. We now have to scrap the lot to get road safety back on track. They are a dangerous distraction from good driving and good policy. If speed cameras had never been introduced, UK road deaths would be down to about 2,200 per year by now - just by following the previous long term trend."
Paul continues: "I'd like to hear Mr Brunstrom say: 'I was wrong, I'm sorry, I resign.' No man of any conscience could do less."
Paul joked: "I guess he's been reading our website."
Safe Speed calls for all speed cameras to be scrapped because they are directly and indirectly responsible for increasing road deaths. All speed camera operations must be suspended immediately. Only then can we get back to the policies that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place. Drivers need to hear messages about skills, attitudes and responsibilities. Obeying the speed limit is absolutely no guarantee of safety, And cameras haven't even increased speed limit compliance to any significant degree.
<ends>
Mr Brunstrom is head of the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO) road policing committee.
Sunday Mirror article: http://tinyurl.com/5mosc
The Sunday Mirror reports that Chief Constable Brunstrom - the man most responsible for speed camera policy - has declared that:
"Enough's enough, speed cameras aren't cutting road deaths". Safe Speed has been pointing this out since 2002 - Brunstrom's statement is years late.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Halting the expansion of speed cameras isn't enough. If the scheme worked expansion would work. The fact is that the negative side effects of speed cameras are GREATER than the potential benefits. We now have to scrap the lot to get road safety back on track. They are a dangerous distraction from good driving and good policy. If speed cameras had never been introduced, UK road deaths would be down to about 2,200 per year by now - just by following the previous long term trend."
Paul continues: "I'd like to hear Mr Brunstrom say: 'I was wrong, I'm sorry, I resign.' No man of any conscience could do less."
Paul joked: "I guess he's been reading our website."
Safe Speed calls for all speed cameras to be scrapped because they are directly and indirectly responsible for increasing road deaths. All speed camera operations must be suspended immediately. Only then can we get back to the policies that gave us the safest roads in the world in the first place. Drivers need to hear messages about skills, attitudes and responsibilities. Obeying the speed limit is absolutely no guarantee of safety, And cameras haven't even increased speed limit compliance to any significant degree.
<ends>
Mr Brunstrom is head of the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO) road policing committee.
Sunday Mirror article: http://tinyurl.com/5mosc
14 March 2005, 12:16 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be warned continued and repeated breaches of the terrorism securty act 2005 will see all doubters of Governmeant or more specificly at this moment 'HRH Tony Blair the I' held indefinately without charge, or trial, or right to silence, or right to protest, or right to see the evidence agaisnt you, or right to free legal aid...
...ad finitum
...ad finitum
14 March 2005, 12:31 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey 
That's got to rank up there with 'Saddam Hussein captured alive' in the list of newspaper headlines we never thought we'd see.
I wonder what's rattled him. People just don't have sudden attacks of common sense.
Maybe he's got flashed by a speed camera?
That's got to rank up there with 'Saddam Hussein captured alive' in the list of newspaper headlines we never thought we'd see.
I wonder what's rattled him. People just don't have sudden attacks of common sense.
Maybe he's got flashed by a speed camera?
14 March 2005, 01:13 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mart360
didnt he drop an offensive remark against minoritys the other day
gave an appology, was it accepted??
mart
gave an appology, was it accepted??
mart
Trending Topics
14 March 2005, 01:34 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read that link. Im sorrry but from:
did I read correctly that all he called homosexuals was queer? Some crime against minorities 
Don't have any time for the man with his provenly wrong stance on 'safey cameras'. He may be a w@nker for this, but I doubt calling someone queer is abusive and insulting language, whatever next
"The Gay Police Association is shocked and disappointed that Chief Constable Brunstrom should use such abusive and insulting language,"
Don't have any time for the man with his provenly wrong stance on 'safey cameras'. He may be a w@nker for this, but I doubt calling someone queer is abusive and insulting language, whatever next
14 March 2005, 01:50 PM
#9
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem an over reaction, especially as he apologised immediately he said it.
Why he felt he had to apologise at all is odd though, it's not as if he said "I hate all queers", it was just a word he used.
They are so touchy! Just like women. Hang on a minute..........
Geezer
Why he felt he had to apologise at all is odd though, it's not as if he said "I hate all queers", it was just a word he used.
They are so touchy! Just like women. Hang on a minute..........
Geezer
14 March 2005, 02:23 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not like most of them don't ponce around saying "look at me, I'm queer" but if a straight person says it, oooh, that's not allowed. Just like it's ok for a black chap to call a white chap a cracker, but if we call him a ****** back, ohh lordy, it's like we enslaved his people... wait a min.... (though something tells me that it was actually their own kind that sold them to the white man in the first place, but christ in a bag if you try telling them this)
(though something tells me that it was actually their own kind that sold them to the white man in the first place, but christ in a bag if you try telling them this)
14 March 2005, 02:25 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
Just read that link. Im sorrry but from:
did I read correctly that all he called homosexuals was queer? Some crime against minorities
Don't have any time for the man with his provenly wrong stance on 'safey cameras'. He may be a w@nker for this, but I doubt calling someone queer is abusive and insulting language, whatever next
did I read correctly that all he called homosexuals was queer? Some crime against minorities
Don't have any time for the man with his provenly wrong stance on 'safey cameras'. He may be a w@nker for this, but I doubt calling someone queer is abusive and insulting language, whatever next
He is supposed to set an example for his officers to follow, and the use of a banned word is not exactly setting a good example.
Having said that, I'd rather see him taken to to task over his views on motorists.
14 March 2005, 02:27 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic for a moment, it strikes me as odd that Safe Speed of all groups should be calling for his resignation now. Surely what they've wanted all along is someone in his position who understands that "We have 6,000 cameras in the UK covering every identifiable hotspot, yet road deaths have gone up", and that "We can't keep on going until there is a camera on each lamppost. We've got to stop somewhere."
I'm warming to the guy already - and that's certainly not something I thought I'd ever do when I woke up this morning
I'm warming to the guy already - and that's certainly not something I thought I'd ever do when I woke up this morning
14 March 2005, 02:27 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Markus
It's not like most of them don't ponce around saying "look at me, I'm queer" but if a straight person says it, oooh, that's not allowed. Just like it's ok for a black chap to call a white chap a cracker, but if we call him a ****** back, ohh lordy, it's like we enslaved his people... wait a min.... (though something tells me that it was actually their own kind that sold them to the white man in the first place, but christ in a bag if you try telling them this)
(though something tells me that it was actually their own kind that sold them to the white man in the first place, but christ in a bag if you try telling them this) (As you said the other day, 'bout time we had a beer and a ruby methinks!)
14 March 2005, 02:29 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
Back on topic for a moment, it strikes me as odd that Safe Speed of all groups should be calling for his resignation now. Surely what they've wanted all along is someone in his position who understands that "We have 6,000 cameras in the UK covering every identifiable hotspot, yet road deaths have gone up", and that "We can't keep on going until there is a camera on each lamppost. We've got to stop somewhere."
I'm warming to the guy already - and that's certainly not something I thought I'd ever do when I woke up this morning
I'm warming to the guy already - and that's certainly not something I thought I'd ever do when I woke up this morning
I am impressed though, given his previous stance and outspoken views, that he has had the courage to admit he was wrong.
14 March 2005, 02:45 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget there is an election coming up. It would get the motorist back on side if the government 'listened' and stopped installing any more cameras.
Also, hedgehog mentioned that this might happen as part of paving the way to the introduction of ISA.
***BEWARE - IT'S A TRICK!!***
UB
Also, hedgehog mentioned that this might happen as part of paving the way to the introduction of ISA.
***BEWARE - IT'S A TRICK!!***
UB
14 March 2005, 09:27 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerome,
maybe a tad Seems the fish are not biting 
You're spot on, ruby must be on the cards and soon, plus season 5 and 6 of RD are out very soon as well, so once I have them, and have watched them, I'll get them to you. Oh, I need 1 - 4 back, got to educate Rosie. She's currently being indugled in Coupling and loves it
maybe a tad
Seems the fish are not biting You're spot on, ruby must be on the cards and soon, plus season 5 and 6 of RD are out very soon as well, so once I have them, and have watched them, I'll get them to you. Oh, I need 1 - 4 back, got to educate Rosie. She's currently being indugled in Coupling and loves it
15 March 2005, 08:35 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is true however that vehicle operated warning signs of your actual speed do more than anything else to slow motorists down in constricted areas. Not many drivers like to see their excessive speed flashed up for all to see.
We have a few of those around here so I have had plenty of chance to see them in action.
Les
We have a few of those around here so I have had plenty of chance to see them in action.
Les
15 March 2005, 02:21 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
15 March 2005, 07:41 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mansfield Area
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I see it, is that all these Scameras are slowing people down and causing congestion. That is the problem, this P*ick has cut his own throat by highway robbery fleecing the motorist in the name of road safety, people are now wise to where they are situated and drive accordingly. If your going to speed your not going to do it with a camera up your ****.
17 March 2005, 11:41 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as when the cameras are brought down there is an equally efficient method for capturing the law breakers who insist on speeding then all is well.
No point taking them down until a viable enforceable method for speed control is brought in.
I'd love an overview of how cameras cause road deaths - I find that concept hillarious - sounds to me like safespeeds emporer got caught speeding by a gatso one day and started a crusade against them under the cloak of road safety.
Anyhoo - the cameras wont come down for many many years because they generate revenue and reduce road speed and certainly in my neck of the woods are sensibly placed in order to reduce accidents.
In a perfect world there should be SPECs on every road or maybe a speed limit system linked to an inbuilt gps system in every car which recognises the speed of the road youre on and doesnt let the car exceed it... Fitting of the device mandatory - unless your a consciencous objector in which case you are sent to an island where there are no cars and hairy women called Edna and Doris...I shall fetch my finest toothpicks.
No point taking them down until a viable enforceable method for speed control is brought in.
I'd love an overview of how cameras cause road deaths - I find that concept hillarious - sounds to me like safespeeds emporer got caught speeding by a gatso one day and started a crusade against them under the cloak of road safety.
Anyhoo - the cameras wont come down for many many years because they generate revenue and reduce road speed and certainly in my neck of the woods are sensibly placed in order to reduce accidents.
In a perfect world there should be SPECs on every road or maybe a speed limit system linked to an inbuilt gps system in every car which recognises the speed of the road youre on and doesnt let the car exceed it... Fitting of the device mandatory - unless your a consciencous objector in which case you are sent to an island where there are no cars and hairy women called Edna and Doris...I shall fetch my finest toothpicks.
17 March 2005, 12:14 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely in a perfect world, drivers would all be trained to choose a speed that was appropriate and safe for the prevailing conditions, so there would be no need for hard and fast speed limits at all?
17 March 2005, 01:47 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Abdabz
As long as when the cameras are brought down there is an equally efficient method for capturing the law breakers who insist on speeding then all is well.
No point taking them down until a viable enforceable method for speed control is brought in.
I'd love an overview of how cameras cause road deaths - I find that concept hillarious - sounds to me like safespeeds emporer got caught speeding by a gatso one day and started a crusade against them under the cloak of road safety.
Anyhoo - the cameras wont come down for many many years because they generate revenue and reduce road speed and certainly in my neck of the woods are sensibly placed in order to reduce accidents.
In a perfect world there should be SPECs on every road or maybe a speed limit system linked to an inbuilt gps system in every car which recognises the speed of the road youre on and doesnt let the car exceed it... Fitting of the device mandatory - unless your a consciencous objector in which case you are sent to an island where there are no cars and hairy women called Edna and Doris...I shall fetch my finest toothpicks.
No point taking them down until a viable enforceable method for speed control is brought in.
I'd love an overview of how cameras cause road deaths - I find that concept hillarious - sounds to me like safespeeds emporer got caught speeding by a gatso one day and started a crusade against them under the cloak of road safety.
Anyhoo - the cameras wont come down for many many years because they generate revenue and reduce road speed and certainly in my neck of the woods are sensibly placed in order to reduce accidents.
In a perfect world there should be SPECs on every road or maybe a speed limit system linked to an inbuilt gps system in every car which recognises the speed of the road youre on and doesnt let the car exceed it... Fitting of the device mandatory - unless your a consciencous objector in which case you are sent to an island where there are no cars and hairy women called Edna and Doris...I shall fetch my finest toothpicks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM