Mods, I know this is non-Scooby, but please leave here for a little while.

Just had an email about this.

So, is this a perfect example of Police/CPS double-standards, or a perfect example of gutter journalists attempting to trap one of the leading guardians of public safety? Discuss...

Let's think about this, some hack from the papers gets hold of a 'speed gun' and clocks the car at speed......

Right,

Was it calibrated to home office approved standards?

Was the operator trained in its use? (i'm not and i'm 5-0)

Were all correct statements and expert statements put forward?

Was it video or hand held, kinda matters?


Just thinking if this was not case and cps ran it then it opens flood gates to having a go at other professions, always fancied blowing buildings up myself, you think if i get some plastic explosive and do the house next door i'll be ok? It's alright though i'll make sure i get pictures for the papers!!

All good points, and to a large extent I agree. However, if you're going to (justifiably) attack the concept of civilians picking up speed guns, how can you fit this with the fact that some police forces have been openly recruting local residents and even schoolchildren to act as "speed enforcement teams", which don't have the power to prosecute, but do have the power to detect, stop and warn speeding motorists?
There seems to be a big double standard here, which The Sun have exploited rather cleverly.

The paper must always have known that the Brunstrom prosecution would be chucked out by the CPS. Their intention from the outset was no doubt to make her father look like an idiot/hypocrite, which I'd say they, in concert with other articles that have appeared about him and the North Wales force, have probably done. Nevertheless, today's developments will no doubt give them another pop in tomorrow's edition.

[Edited by greasemonkey - 12/4/2003 3:00:47 PM]

Brunstrom is a fool. Even the most speed conscious driver is likely to break the speed limit at some time, even if its just by a couple of mph (otherwise they'll be constantly looking at the speedo and not the road). By taking this stance he has set himself up as a target.

He's probably pi55ed some bobby off up there in N Wales. So if any N Wales bobbies look at this, catch him if you can, just to prove a point.

Exceeding the speed limit is wrong, but it also needs to be put into context (i.e. time of day/place)

From Chris29's points, I can see why they couldn't actually prosecute her. However....

Rant mode on.

Notwithstanding that, Richard Brunstrom is a total, complete and utter cretin. The interviews with him on the recent TV programme regarding the vandalism of speed cameras proved this beyond doubt.

I have no sympathy for anyone who gets nicked for driving at excessive speeds in residential or built-up areas, especially near schools, hospitals etc., but how many cameras do you see at these locations? None! Instead they are on fast, normally safe, streches of road.

That's why, Mr. Brunstrom, your cameras show little or no reduction in road fatalities, and why such a large proportion of the populous object to them so much. I don't condone vandalism, but neither do I have any sympathy when I see burned out cameras which are placed with revenue generation, not safety, in mind.

In addition, his obsession with absolute speed gets right up my nose. It's APPROPRIATE speed that matters you blinkered half-wit.

Rant mode off!

[Edited by dr_ming - 12/4/2003 3:48:17 PM]

I never understand why they dont just stick up trafic calming measures where there's risk of pedestrians being flattened, outside schools, estates etc. if there's shicane's/bollards/one way giveways/ speed bumps on a stretch of road that make it physically impossible to speed through them, whats the point of a speed camera on the same stretch of road which only serves to raise revenue, not safety? If im speeding past a school and i hit a child in the camera's safety zone, at least i'd pick up 3 points right?! Its obvious that speed alone doesnt kill (as all the reports & investigations continue to support), which is why this fool Brunstrom is arguing from an indefensible position. More cameras = more money plain & simple. If they want to reduce accidents replace the cameras with physical barriers, not money making "deterrents". I notice he's keeping his mouth shut about his daughters indiscretions, perhaps he'd do well to extend that to every other time he's given the opportunity to speak.

/2ob

dead_nurons, I take your point about traffic calming, rather than cameras. In principle this is more effective at making everyone slow down, rather than just the observent drivers who spot the cameras, or the responsible ones who weren't speeding to start with. However, the problem with traffic calming is that it tends to mess up (i.e. impede) the traffic flow (particularly chicanes), which creates congestion. In principle, a camera does not.

That's kindof a circular issue Dr Ming. The reason "traffic calming" supposedly reduces accident rates is precisely because it impedes traffic flow, that's the point.

If these measures are put in to prompt a reduction in the headline "fatal accident" figures in a certain area, I imagine reducing traffic flow (and increasing congestion in the process) is considered acceptable by the road planning bods, even though it might result in an increase in low speed "bumper to bumper"-type shunts, and an increase in accidents elsewhere as people now try and find an alternative route.

You're right though, road furniture isn't a proper answer, as this causes noise and disruption to local residents. Doesn't mean speed cameras are the answer though.

The recent TRL research indicates that highly visible electronic warning boards have a greater deterrent effect than speed cameras, a point that the Government and Police have seen fit to ignore (along with its other key finding that only 6% of road accidents are actually caused by excessive speed).

Dead_neurons: He doesn't seem to have said anything so far, but as the story only broke this morning, there's still time. Mind you, he was nowhere to be seen when the "racist cop" scandal broke a few weeks back; his deputy seemed to have been left to take all the flak. Maybe he just doesn't get involved when the story isn't "on message"? :rolleyes:

Incidentally, for anyone coming to this thread late, some background on Mr Brunstrom can be obtained here.

[Edited by greasemonkey - 12/4/2003 4:41:30 PM]

It's the same old story m8, one law for lawmakers! and another for the lawbreakers!!
davehttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_2_77.gif

Heard on the radio today that police forces are complaining about speed humps are damaging their vehicles and slowing down their response to emergencies.Class:D.

That's a fairly old one. Ambulance services have been making the same complaint for years, saying the delays getting to the scene and rough journeys back to the hospital were putting casualties' lives at risk.

Apparently some company developed a custom suspension system designed to isolate the stretchers inside the ambulance, but they cost £10,000 each or something and are thus impossible to fit...

Interesting potential precedent though. If a Governmental body like the Police can claim that speed humps damage their vehicles, does that give you grounds to sue your local council for avoidable wear and tear to your car???

Lock the daughter up and throw away the key. Crazy yob ;)

"Was the operator trained in its use? (i'm not and i'm 5-0)"

You don't know how to work a speed gun ??? :rolleyes:

It’s obvious the only qualification’s needed theses days are, are you over 5ft8” and were you bullied at school.

The seven year olds referenced in the BBC story above certainly weren't over 5'8" Grovesy, although it's a fair bet that some of them will have been bullied at school. ;)

It's a fair point though; what sort of training will they have had, or indeed the group of villagers another force had rounded up in the other story I was referring to? If the actions of these kids are supposedly contributing to the planning of traffic-calming measures, surely their findings should be verifiable and accurate??? :confused:

Greasemonkey - 'tis a circular argument to some degree, I can't deny, but slowing down the traffic flow is one thing, reducing the capacity, by only allowing flow in one direction at a time for example, just makes for big traffic jams (which in itself can make the road more dangerous for pedestrians).

I agree that traffic calming is not the answer and cameras are not much better. Educating people out of their speeding habits (by which I mean innapropriate speed) is what is needed, but how? I sure as hell don't have the answer :(

[Edited by dr_ming - 12/4/2003 5:26:57 PM]