Safe Speed Forums

What makes this whole sorry mess worse is his attempt to divert the blame for the outcry to those who attended the briefing, instead of simply apologising for a stupid mistake:

Without reference to his other blunders, these are the points I identified in this latest one:
(1.) He briefly exposed a small number of invited people to an EXTREMELY harrowing image, while aiming the event at a wider audience whom he says trivialise road deaths. So where is the benefit in restricting exposure to a small number who are not the targets of his campaign? And who defines "harrowing" without knowing the sensitivities of the audience?

(2.) At the same time, the image was of a rider who had been photographed committing an offence, but not detained - nor would he have been identified from a false reg. plate. Yet he accuses a small section of "distorting the meeting" for their OWN purposes!

(3.) He seems to have failed to make the point that the rider was not insured - an offence which adds to the misery of any road accident victim, and which could have been included in the misery of road accidents message.

(4.) His "fundamental plank" seems only to consist of slowing drivers to (in some cases) ridiculously set limits, with cameras recording offences which would be better judged and dealt with by properly trained and equipped policemen!

He seems to show no remorse whatever for actually showing the image, but merely seeks to blame others for the upset caused by HIS actions.

He clearly has failed to learn anything from this event and the reaction of a wider audience - and because of his, he is clearly not fit to hold the post he occupies.
One can forgive a mistake, but failing to learn from it is unforgivable!

It is sometimes said (especially by the rabid BRAKE spokesperson) that a speeding vehicle is as dangerous as a loaded gun - but if that were true, wouldn't we be tackling gun crime by installing cameras to photograph the perpetrators, and making them conditional offers? Brundstrom would appear to think so if you follow his logic!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Perhaps - but then he would not be embroiled in yet another mess which more than alienates hard working cops - who are true to their professional consciences from the public who expect and deserve better respect. Whatever daftness this lad .. and whatever error - forced error.. panic error on the part of the other motorist - neither should have been put through this without any permission or fore-warning that this was to happen.

And a press conference to show journalists that RTACs are not a matter of some mangled metal .. but that some of these incidents are just truly horrific. (I used to be physically sick on many occasion.)

But he must have known that journalists will report this story as it is in the "public interest" and thus now stating it was not intended for press coverage .. even Dr Watson and Hastings would have deduced correctly that any journalist worth his proverbial scotch and fags would report it with relish

I posted up one gory story when this board first started up .. describing in graphic detail what happens to a young driver when he meets with a tree at speed.

I have other seriously awful anecdotes.

Was when I was based with the Met. Was called to an incident on the M1. Rear -ender multiple vehicle incident.

Lorry was carrying iron piling tubes and girders. These slipped in the impact .. estimated from forensics to have been a shunts at 50 mph. These went through the windcreen of the vehicle which had been pushed into this lorry by the van which struck it. The girder decapitated the young pregnant passenger in that car. This was in the days where mobile phones were not an issue .. but that driver had been fiddling with tapes for his in-car cassette player. He got locked up as I recall.. even back then in the .. good ol'days!

The second horror .. M61 late 80s. Was with GMP. A pal of mine (we met at Hendon) was with Lancs. He dealt with that - but the family were local to my patch - and I was what we now call a Liaison Officer at the time.

Was on the merge with M61/M6. This slip has quite a curve. Tanker took this bend at some speed and lost it .. tipping over and striking two cars. Occupants of all these vehicles were badly injured but alive and the tanker did not catch fire - which was lucky.

However, when they came to clear away the wreckage... they found a Mini Metro car beneath the tanker. This had one male, one female and two boys aged about 10 and 8 years old. They were actually crushed beyond identification - and it was clothing, car registration and other belongings which identified them - plus anxious calls from the boy's parents who were worried when the family did not return from their trip to Blackpool. Uncle and Aunty were taking the children for a end of summer holiday treat to Blackpool's Pleasure Beach. My colleague said he was also physically sick at the time ...and I was required to call around at the family's home and inform then as gently as possible that their family had died .

So yes .. all incidents are more than just an accidental collision. But any such use of horrific reality requires permission from all parties - and a safety policy which relies mainly on Speed Cameras cannot work as efficiently as claimed in getting a "safe speed/COAST conduct at all times" message across. We need police and a constant - freindly but memorable nagging to the public over all good and safe driving practices via all available media.

Apart from that .. his act seemed to be more about ridiculing the dead man in public than delivering a sobering message that OTT recklessness can turn in a split second to sheer horror. The T-shirt should not have been referred to .. and perhaps one photo taken from one of the more "discreet" angles to protect identification via the T-shirt and motorbike registration - plus a simple report as to the coroner's findings should have sufficed to inform the journalists as to the horrors behind these incidents - which class amongst the rarer horrors - thankfully for us .. but not so for those involved.

I fully agree with Bill Brereton's interview in which he considers this act was counterproductive and that this is serious error of judgement on Dick's part. It certainly has not helped improve relations.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

The T-shirt does not appear to have been quoted in full in the reports.
Does anyone know the FULL text on the shirt, not just the reference to police catching REAL criminals?
It certainly wasn't displayed with just speeding in mind!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

See The Times report. Linked somewhere further back in the thread.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The Sun

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I think Ernest has made the point well that Brunstrom clearly failed to appreciate what the very predictable response from the audience to his presentation would be, and is incapable of ever understading it.

Brunstrom is an extremely self-righteous man - to a fault. I have no doubt that the slogan on Mr Gibney's t-shirt riled him and he took some perverse pleasure in trying to make an example of the guy, expecting the utmost support from the people there.

Fortunately for them they could appreciate the devastating effect of Dick's extreme insensitivity with respect to the feelings of the dead mans family, over and above any of his pious preaching.

What exactly was he expecting the audience to do?! Be instantly converted to his way of thinking?

This latest from North Wales is just about the most inept piece of news management I have ever seen. Three hours ago the story was dead. No one, and I mean no one was going to cover it tomorrow.

So what do North Wales Police do? They set it off all over again...

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 19:57:

PR474: Brunstrom - sorry isn't enough

news: for immediate release

North Wales Police have issued a statement apologising for their error of
judgement in displaying the dead biker pictures, Reuters reports.

Paul Smith, founder of http://www.safespeed.org.uk, said: "Admitting their
gross error of judgement, North Wales Police have issued an apology. Pointedly
the apology is not from Mr Brunstrom but from 'North Wales Police'."

"Even at this late stage Mr Brunstrom apparently hasn't had the common decency
to apologise for his error. The man is a buffoon and clearly not suited to the
office of Chief Constable."

"It's time to do the decent thing, Mr Brunstrom, and go now before you are
sacked."

"If there's one thing we need from Chief Constables it's good judgement."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

Reuters News:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticN ... 4420070429

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I would bet a lot of money on the jist of the apology to the family:

"North Wales Police (not Brunstrom) apologise for the fact that the odious press chose to exploit the death of this young man to suit their own agenda" - end of apology. No mention of Brunstrom, no mention of accountability, basically no nothing.

:yesyes: The further up one rises in ANY organisation, the attribute of judgement becomes increasingly important.

No, the man's just barking.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

Outside various moral posturings, who do you think 'owns' the rights to these pictures? I'm not sure that Brunstrom's organisation has done anything particularly 'wrong' in showing them in a closed/private conference/lecture situation.

I presume the police have used pictures of crashed vehicles in various situations before. I presume that they have shown other pictures of dead road users for various reasons in the past. The news reports read as pretty second-hand. I think it is just the 'shock' value that people presume is in these photos that is the problem.

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 01:59 Monday:

PR475: Statements from Mark Gibney's family

news: for immediate release

Following the North Wales Police row over photographs of a dead biker, I have
been telephoned by a man claiming to be Mark Gibney's brother, Paul. I have
considerable confidence that he is genuine. He provided the following
statements and asked me to send them to the press:

Paul Gibney said: "Did you ever consider Mark's Children and Mark's wife
Eileen? Also his mother - who had no idea how Mark really died. It was kept
from them by me and my father William. The irresponsible and callous Chief
Constable, Richard Brunstrom has forced us to relive the nightmare from four
years ago. Coming to terms with such a death is hard enough, but Brunstom's
interference has made it ten times worse. Brunstrom is in breech of the
Police's moral duty, he has given no respect for the deceased or his family. We
have a right to our privacy. These pictures were meant to be for evidential
purposes only. What right does this man have to show anyone, even journalists,
these pictures? We will not, as a family, let this rest until this lunatic, who
they call a chief constable is sacked. Resignation won't be good enough."

Paul Gibney told me that this statement is also on behalf of Mark Gibney's
other brothers Carl and Shawn.

Paul Gibney also gave me the following statement from 'Eileen' (Mark Gibney's
widow): "The last four years have been the hardest four years of my life. I'm
still trying to be strong for the sake of my young children - I'm raising them
without their father. I knew that Mark died in a motorcycle accident, but I
didn't know the extent of his horrific injuries.

My eldest son Mark is devastated over the death of his father and the injuries
he suffered, which he now knows for the first time because of the unacceptable
behaviour of the Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom.

He had no feelings toward me, my children and my partner. To say that I am
angry about his actions is an understatement. I hope Richard Brunstrom is
removed from his position because I wouldn't want any other family to go
through what I'm going through now because of his disrespectful and callous
behaviour.

The man is not human and he has no heart."

Paul Smith, founder of http://www.safespeed.org.uk, said: "The damage to the
Gibney family is immeasurable. It cannot be put right. Chief Constable Richard
Brunstrom is responsible. If he won't do the decent thing and resign
immediately, he must be sacked."

"This demonstration of gross misjudgement proves that Richard Brunstrom is
quite unsuitable for his role as North Wales Chief Constable."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

The Gibney family DO NOT want to be contacted by press or media. I have a cell
phone number which I am not authorised to divulge.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Sorry, but that is the sort of dispassionate nonsense that Brunstrom is probably using at this very moment to justify his actions, yet what exactly was his point in parading such graphic pictures of someone he considered a disrespector of the law unless it was to elicit an emotional response?! I bet he had hundreds of 'examples' to choose from. Why pick this one? He can't have it both ways.

The problem here is obvious to the majority of people. Brunstrom is employed to serve the people, yet these actions seems to suggest that he is insensitive to the feelings of people and belies his true attitude that he is simply a self righteous, self serving, out-of-touch buffoon.

Why not try to question your actions? You may not like the way guy operates (and I don't either) but do you really think there is any reason he is not allowed to show a picture of a dead person to get an emotional response (and I bet that is why the picture was chosen) to a group of (invited) people?

Would you censor Robert Capa's pictures of the Spanish Civil war and the D-Day landings? What about Roger Fenton's pictures from the Crimea or Don McCullen's from Vietnam simply because they showed dead people and were originally published to gain an emotional response?

No. The MAJORITY of the people (including EVERYONE on here I think) have not seen these pictures. They cannot be materially affected by something they have not actually seen - they can only imagine that they would be affected if they did see them.

I don't mind if you don't like Brunstrom and want to have a go at him, but my previous post was questioning the purpose of attacking the use of photographs as I don't think he has actually done anything 'wrong' at all.

There ist a difference. He showed these to reporters who wrote up the piece und managed to identify the victims in the papers. This caused them untoward publicity und rekindled their grief without warning.

They should have been consulted as a matter of courtesy und asked if they wished the detail be issued to help prevent further follies like that. But they were not .. und as for the D-Day landings und 1940s newsreels .. und even current war in Iraq.. there ist a difference in that war inevitably means harsh brutality. But this was a matter of a road accident... und a road accident ist not the same as death in service as soldier or images of warfare. This was a family who sought to shield its young from the horrid manner of their father's death until perhaps they were older und better equipped to deal with this.. und suddenly faced with this in the papers

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Leaving aside the legal rights to use the pictures, my criticism is based on this:
He briefly exposed a small number of invited people to an EXTREMELY harrowing image, while aiming the event at a wider audience whom he says trivialise road deaths.

In other words, in order to get a shocking message across to a small number of people, he showed an entirely different small number of people an extremely shocking picture.
How did he expect them to communicate THEIR shock to the others without making reference to what they had been shown?
If they were to keep quiet, then why show them - it simply served no useful purpose!

It was at best inept, and his attitude since the event shows he STILL feels his ineptness was not a problem.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

So you think that the difference is simply that the fatality was identifiable to the next-of-kin? If they were not would the use of pictures of fatal road incidents have been acceptable?

Who told the family about the use of the pictures? Not Brunstrom (or the NWP) - it was 'the press'. They need not have reported the contents of a meeting so graphically. Does that not make the press, perhaps in their attempts to discredit Brunstrom, just as culpable?

It was not an 'accident'. You often get 'harsh brutality' when people can't think through the consequences of their actions properly. It was reported that the rider was unlicensed, uninsured and riding a 1300cc Suzuki superbike on the wrong side of the road at some speed.

I don't doubt that his own disregard for (some of) the 'law' lead to his demise. Do you?

It may not be pleasant, but avoiding the actuality doesn't remove the issues. And again, don't you see that this is also a matter for the press to consider?

I don't disagree with that.

Absolutely, was there ever any doubt? Grizzly images have been used (rather ineffectively I might add) in this type of presentation since the advent of the pictogram. The issue is with the identifiability of the subject coupled with the fact that his family did not acquiesce to this use of the photos.

The argument that it is the press who are at fault is wholly fallacious; you can no more give a presentation to journalists and expect them not to report it than you can place a fish in water and expect it not to swim! If Blunderstrom truly expected that the content of the presentation would not be divulged then he is far too naive to be trusted with such a press/public-facing role! I rather suspect that he fully intended the information to make it's way into the public domain, and any requests that it didn't were merely a half-arsed attempt to establish 'plausible deniability'.

Ouch! It sounds like you’re saying he had it coming….



Nonsense. He died because he failed to Observe, Anticipate and Plan his ride. The fact he was breaking the law had nothing to do with it.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished