Safe Speed Forums

An opinion no one so far seems to share. So why are you trying to hammer it home in your sig?!

1) Because I can.
2) Because I want to.
3) Because I believe it.

And to clarify your point - no one who has posted "here" shares it - several people I have pointed it out to agree that there are double standards operating in the "campaign".

Next question?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

In that case you had better define 'ghoulish' because it cannot be made to fit with any definition I can find.

I don't, for example, have, nor does the PR express 'an unnatural interest in corpses'.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghoul



the speed with which the press release came out following the tragic event indicates a veritable delight.

See also Double Standards

Signature edited to suit - I don't want to be caught up in pedantic arguments when the basic fact remains that according to the owner of this site, it's OK for him to capitalise on FIVE tragic deaths, without the permission of the deceased families, but it's not ok for the other odious man to exploit ONE under the same circumstances. I heartily agree with the latter, I do not agree with the former.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I don't think the PR is well-judged. There is some merit in the argument that fatal crash investigation should about finding out what happened and why rather than 'pointing the finger' (in the same way as MAIB and AAIB investigations), but I think the police crash investigators do that as well. It may be that the need to secure evidence means that roads are closed for a substantial time after a crash - that's inconvenient for many but being dead is pretty inconvenient as well. It's hard to see an alternative. In particular, if there was an independent road crash investigation agency, it's surely almost certain that the road closures would last longer.

I have re-read the PR twice. I simply cannot see how ‘delight’ can be read from it.
The speed of PR release is critical; it has nothing to do with delight. Too late and the item will no longer be news, hence no-one will bother publishing it.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

And how do you respond to the charge of double standards on the part of your dear leader?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I was getting to that:



Would you also direct your distaste at the media as they capitalised by taking and broadcasting photos of the event to boost their circulation, even though they also published articles slamming Brunstrom.

The critical difference is that Paul didn’t publish anything new about the M25 event (not even a photo), whereas Brunstrom did (or at least took the risk of doing so) hence causing the further stress to the families.

Please, Paul is not my 'dear leader'.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Yes.



apologies.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Fair enough.

However, I believe I had also highlighted the critical difference between PS's and RB's actions, so I cannot see how you could continue to accuse PS of double standards.

Just going slightly off-topic for a moment, I noticed references in an earlier post to MAIB and AAIB but it struck me that we didn't have a "RAIB" - and yet we loose far more people on the roads each year than the air and sea put together! I wonder whether a "Road Accident Investigation Branch" that was entirely independednt, separate from the police and insurance companies, would be a good idea? If the numbers of casualties are to be considered, this bunch ought to get more funding that the MAIB and AAIB put together! THAT might get us some much better data about "speed kills" and the other various myths that abound where road accidents are concerned!

I should feel quite hurt if I were accused of being ghoulish and I don't think that fits Paul's' profile. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ghoulish

Given Paul's profession and considerable experience of road safety don't you think it would be incumbent on him to take an interest in these matters? Would you accuse a surgeon or paramedic of ghoulish behaviour too, or are they not just doing their job like Paul?

The pictures are no more disturbing or graphic than commercials or news reports you would see on the television, which seem to be acceptable to us all, do they not?

I'm not a sycophant but I think anyone who champions a good cause in the face of an omnipotent force is to be applauded.

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defence are the constitutional rights secure." - Albert Einstein.

This is why I support Safespeed.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

FWIW...
I though the PR to be more crass than ghoulish.
The message that it communicates (perhaps unintentionally) is that the needs of the individuals sat waiting for the road to be re-opened somehow outweigh the need for the police to investigate the how and the why 6 people died. It has the hallmarks of the selfish attitudes prevelant in today's society and the off-hand way we deal with the death on the roads of people we don't know.

Excuse me, but it neither says nor implies ANY SUCH THING.

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

There is a distinct difference between what you meant it to say, and think it says, and what someone else might think it says.

I'm not going to take any responsibility for things that people make up.

Neither am I going to run a PC campaign based on 'what people might think'. It's hard fact and hard truth. It's the only way to save lives.

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

cough

I just came back to this thread via a circuitous route, largely through curiosity to see what all the latest bout of toy-chucking was all about. Having considered the last half dozen posts or so I then went back and read the original PR afresh and would conclude that on first reading it makes two clear points:

Firstly - and primarily - it makes the point that Police crash investigations have the wrong objectives in mind, that this wastes an opportunity to prevent further accidents. Leading on from this, it lays the blame for this error clearly at the feet of Richard Brunstrom, inasmuch as he was responsible for setting such objectives.

Secondly, it also implies that the closure of the M25 to investigate this accident was excessively long. Whilst it doesn't directly state why this was too long, nevertheless I inferred it to mean that if the objectives of road safety had been correctly set then this would no longer be a problem.

Taking a slight step back, the overall tone of the piece seems squarely directed at RB, using this incident as an example of his incompetence. That may well have been a bit ill-judged or perhaps ill-timed - the news story here was the horrific accident, not the whys and wherefores of crash investigation, so to bring this into play in order to pillory Brunstrom (albeit for a 100% valid error) does smack slightly of opportunism.

IMHO The same PR would have been absolutely spot on in response to a news story some days later that (for arguments sake) covered the aftermath of the incident and perhaps legal charges arising; but in response to the crash itself I think it was wrong, and in any case doomed to failure as no paper would be liable to pick it up and run with it at that time for fear of being attacked for all the reasons debated in this thread.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

This site has always welcomed good debate and expects that there will be differences of opinion, sometimes rather heated. If someone feels the emperor has no clothes, that is their right to say and we will just have to agree to disagree, but I don't see any impropriety on Paul's side. He hasn't displayed or instigated the use of any picture where people are recognisable without their consent causing grief to friends or family members.

We know his true motives so I don't know why some are trying to discredit him. He stands to make nothing from Safespeed except to save lives on our roads, which is a completely different agenda to the government's or Brunstrom's!

I know that you believe you understand what you think he said, but I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what he meant

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

How do you know that? By what knowledge or authority do you seek to second guess the actions of the police in such circumstances.