Safe Speed Forums

Handy, can you explain how Paul Smith is guilty of double standards?

I've read the link you point to, but I can't see where you're coming from...

I agree with your first line of your sig.

Richard Brunstrom is a buffoon and should be sacked
Paul Smith is guilty of double standards

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Richard Brunstrom capitalised on a tragic incident (the death of a motorcyclist) to further his own campaign, without permission of the family of the deceased.

Paul "Safespeed" Smith issued a press release condeming Brunstrom for his abhorrent behaviour.

Paul "Safespeed" Smith issued a press release within hours of a tragic incident (the death of 5 partygoers and 1 recovery driver) to further his own campaign, without the permission of the families of the deceased.

Paul "Safespeed" Smith did not release a press release condeming himself for abhorrent behaviour, nor has he (even after several people have responded to say that they felt his press release was ill advised) even offered an apology.

This link may help you to understand, although I'm not sure why it references Squirrels.

_________________
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.

My response was never satisfactorily answered!

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

You say


you went on to say

I saw no question there. What answer did you expect? "oh, yeah, I see the difference now, you are quite right, give Paul a knighthood"? Yeah, right.

If you wish to have a response, how is this:

Richard Brunstrom referenced a tragic accident in what he (foolishly) described as a closed session with journalists. Paul "Safespeed" Smith issued a press release referencing a tragic accident DIRECT TO THE PRESS in the hope of scoring some very cheap points. So the critical difference is that whereas RB tried to shock but NOT put it into the public domain[1], PS deliberately wanted to shock AND put it out in the public domain. In reality, there is no "critical difference", both actions were wrong.

Andy

footnote [1] I don't believe this for a minute - RB was wrong, wrong, wrong to capitalise on that bikers death, and has tried to backpedal out of the surrounding furore.

_________________
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.

The PR wasn't even remotely 'about the crash'. It was about crash investigation. It contains nothing about cause or blame. It contains no personal details of the crash victims in any way. It contains nothing about their injuries. It certainly doesn't contain any photographs. It doesn't contain anything that would be of any concern or interest to the families of those who died.

So you're completely 'off the rails' with this.

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

I expected you to justify your continuance of your signature.


RB did so much more than that: he showed graphic images of a tragic incident without consent of kin.


You must know that many thought the points contained within were quite valid. What exactly were the ‘cheap points’?


You must be joking!

I have read the PR again, there is no way anyone could consider that PR to have shock value – it was not extreme in any way. What is shocking about it?


PS released only his take on the issues surrounding the incident (as opposed to the incident itself); he released no new information about the incident. In fact all he released was the time, the road and the number of fatalities, information by its generic nature is non-sensitive; this kind of information is reasonably expected to be put into the wild and referenced.

You’re basing your argument on capitalisation but you have drawn the line so far back that you cannot even approach land.
The real issue was one of sensitivity resulting from RB’s act of capitalisation, his actions risking – no, predictably causing distress to the next of kin – which is what made RB ‘backpedal’. How do you believe PS’s PR was in any way risking insensitivity to the families of those involved?

edit:
for PS’s PR, permission isn’t needed because the information given cannot aid identification of the individuals involved, let alone cause further distress. This is where RB so comprehensively failed.

It wasn't "risking" insensitivity.

It was insensitive.

If you had lost a family member in that crash, would you be happy to know that a single issue campaigner had jumped on your tragic loss to have a go at someone?

_________________
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.

Read my post, I didn't say it was 'about the crash', I said 'referencing a tragic accident'. There is a description of what reference means here. The reference is fairly clear in the opening lines of your press release:



Having lost a family member in a crash that caused severe delays as the police searched and found evidence, I can testify that people whining about the delays certainly had:

My family were distraught to hear people complaining that they had to find different routes that day, as though being a little late was something important compared to the loss of a family member.

_________________
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.

As per my families case (referenced above), it did cause distress when we heard people whining about being delayed or having to choose a different route.

_________________
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 really do wonder sometimes if you aren't from a different planet to the rest of us Handy.

Was there anything in PS's PR that wouldn't already have been in the media, probably within hours of the crash taking place? No? Insensitivity test failed!

If one has a gripe with the way the authorities respond to fatal accidents, how exactly is one meant to highlight it without reference to fatal accidents?

Yes mon brave, you're right, its so horribly insensitive, just let them crack on and do whatever they like without scrutiny, because the topic is so distasteful!

What was insensitive about it? We know the timing is justifiable hence we can dismiss that.


I hardly view it as ‘jumping on’. The PR was referencing an example that, to our eyes, is exactly the same as countless other such tragedies.

If I were touched so tragically and I had just read that PR and I had disagreed with the sentiments, I still wouldn’t care simply because I would be much more concerned with how I will cope with my loss than about the opinion of a group of people. If this opinion is instead quite prominent (and I had partway come to terms with my loss), I would be demanding an answer to the PR: “is this true?” (then perhaps lambasting whoever had the wrong ideology).

How do you expect anyone to get their message across effectively if they were to deliberately avoid any reference to such an example – ever ?!?

I assume you are referring to: “Closing the M25 for 10 hours on a busy bank holiday wasn't necessary”. PS clarifiedthis later on (perhaps the PR should have been clearer?).

That was one small aside buried within an otherwise focussed PR. That hardly warranted the level of your response; besides, that wasn’t your original point.

It isnt the first time that closing roads for accident investigation has come up in these forums.

I have long been concerned that roads seem to be closed for an inordinate length of time - presumably because the standard of evidence needs to be so high when somebody has died, or is expected to die.
For that reason, there is always going to be a family connected with any reference, but I see nothing in the PR which would highten any distress to a family associated with the accident on the M25.

However the point remains that accident investigation should be more speedily resolved - using more manpower if necessary - the issues are far more than merely delaying a few drivers. The consequences of not being on time to meet children from school etc. can be more than a mere inconvenience, and if it were raining, such evidence as there is should be best cleared up and recorded ASAP.

The thread I started after a series of road closures near my home is here.

In it Ian H points out that the people at the scene are not aware of what is going on around them - so perhaps there needs to be some sort of overseeing control to address the points I raised - and perhaps Paul's PR would provoke that.

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

But they have their own lives to live.


You would be amazed at rather questionable stuff I have read about a certain family in Portugal To them - nothing matters more than finding that child. But people jump up und down - reading what the tabloids say as "true fact" when ist just a report at third hand und only based on what the police there are allowed to say

Episodes within this family ..it caused delays. Even back in days before speed cams und "suspicion of deepest criminal mind set"

I think we felt more "awkward und embarrassed to think we caused chaos" than feelings of being "distraught" as we knew that those affected did not know us.. und were frustrated at the delays it caused them und the cost of those delays to their businesses.

IG did explain why he would close down a road und I think tactfully to each side. Ist his "discretion" perhaps.

But this was motorway with one carriageway affected. Like they did the other day on M25 per Sally Traffic und once last autumn on M6 - they opened up one lane und the other carriageway to manage the traffic und get a flow going to relieve the gridlock. They could have done this without compromising evidence as this does, form each news report und photos, look increasingly to me like case of mini-bus not secured properly - perhaps banging into cabin und the driver in shock accelerate perhaps into the lorry ahead of him with awful consequence. I am sure inquest will report such accident.

But I also wonder if road surface damage or if barrier need a replace as this also delay things too.

As for the press release - it did not name the people involved. It questioned more why roads are closed for so long und why all accidents are treated as a "crime scene" when ist obviously a very nasty accident.

I am sure if I was relative or friend of someone who die in car driver - I would not want any suggestion at start that person was "criminally negligent" in any way. I object to this police phrase of "homicide scene" if you like when we do not know cause of crash or of defect or road condition or catalyst driver who create the danger (as in a case in Kent. They never found the person who killed "mahali's" girl either. Not even after it appear on "Crimewatch" )

In Brunstrom's case - he show photo.. und he mocked the choice of his T-shirt too apparently. This, to that family, was almost llike saying he deserved to die like that in a way. He insulted a dead man's memory und whether or not the man was legally entitled to be on that bike or not.. that ist a for him to pass such judgement to press.

_________________
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!

Sorry Handy but RB's and PS's actions do not come across as a like-for-like comparison at all.

I'm truly sorry to hear about your personal tragedy but are you sure you're not just an angry man on a mission "making fun of serious people since 1977"?

When the NHS screwed up the life of someone in my life I hated the very service I worked for - for a long time. But there are very hard working good people who do their best despite the system, rather than because of it.

Please don't tar all journalists with the same brush.

_________________
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.

Nope, your assumption is wrong. Nearly 10 years ago, my cousin was killed (manslaughter, as the court found afterwards) by a professional driver who chose which aspects of the law he wanted to adhere to (probably using his skill and judgement to determine what was safe). The crash was a serious one, on a major cross-country artery, and the road was closed for such a long time that the delays made it onto national news.

My family were made aware of whingers ringing into radio stations making almost exactly the same point as Smith does in his PR - They were delayed and had to find an alternative route, and they found this unacceptable.

My aunt and uncle didn't think "oh dear, what a shame for them, what a shame they've been inconvenienced". No, they were cut up that a tragedy that ripped the family apart was treated with such disdain.

I can't speak for the families of the people involved in this crash, but I can speak personally about a similar experience.

_________________
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.

If they phoned in just to whinge then they are , but are whingers now dictating what should be in the public interest? Are you saying it's wrong to put something in the public domain just because of whingers?

If an aeroplane crashes somewhere which affects your journey at an airport causing delays for 10 or 48 hours, wouldn't you at some point want to know what's being done and when you can be on your way?

Once you have prayed for the victims and strength to all involved, is it wrong at some point to inquire about your journey so you can make a decision about; what to do, who to phone, what to cancel etc? Would that then make you a whinger or would someone take you as whinging?

Maybe it's the radio station which acted improperly?

I hope this doesn't come across as insensitive Handy, I certainly wouldn't want to offend. I do know what it is to loose loved ones but I'm sure you understand we have to ask the question.

_________________
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.

I genuinely don’t understand how. That was the only connect I could make, and that was with an amount of ‘interpretation’.


The point of the PR was one of questioning the goal of these accident investigations, not nearly what you claim PS’s point to be.

Like the others here, I too am sorry to hear about your loss.

But I read PS's PR to be about identifying the CAUSE of the accident, thus...



So I don't think PS is at all guilty of double-standards.

I too, believe that we should identify and solve problems at the root, not just keep treating the symptoms.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Firstly - sincere condolences on your loss. A cousin. We do know exactly what it does feel like to lose someone in a crash. You know the history of our family anyway.

But there is much more to simply closing a road down. Other people stuck in that queue may have very urgent, genuine and very reasoned logical matters which affect their lives, quality of life as well - and quite naturally - they just want to get back home or to work.




Then this would have met the conditions which IG posted up - as in the standard of driving involved a real risk of death and that this standard was so bad in each circumstance possible - that in the eyes of a jury and court - it was downright criminally negligent or used as an instrument of attack. (The legal bods in the family cited me two case laws which set these as precedent - both are 1994/1997 respectively.)


This would have been an extraordinary incident - like the freak one which closed off a northern motorway for several hours when that chap hit Wildy with extreme force.

I think police will know very early on whether or not they are looking at complicated which needs a deep sweep of the entire area or a routine shunt. In the case of the texting lorry driver - they even drove a similar lorry down that road to check out his views of the queues ahead. To my mind - that warranted a "manslaughter" charge. As he had literally driven over the little hatchback as it the lorry were a tank - then a road closure whilst they investigated the wreckage at the scene and took witness statements from the drivers in that queue and approaching that queue at the time would be well justified.




As I recall the police officer on Traffic Cop quite rightly booked the muppet who tried to use the hard shoulder in atttempt to get to work but failed to do likewise to the other impatient copying twazak who nipped back into L1. (Had I been in L1 at the time - I think "courtesy of letting him zip merge would have been ignored and I would have blocked him on this one occasion )




But a lot of incidents - tragic and traumatic as they always are to those directly involved with them - are the result of the stupid error and unlucky con-incidental chance - and experienced accident investigators should be able to determine fairly early on in their investigation - the most probable cause from the evidence and then work to get the evidence they need methodically and as efficiently quickly as possible thereafter.

Because, even though they are investigating the scene of a crash involving a fatality - there is still the matter of traffic management and keeping traffic flowing and other people not involved or even unaware of this incident from causing further carnage by impatient frustration.

(How many times have you been in a long queue? Not moving for several minutes at a time and concluded "Nasty accident ahead"? Only to find this was a "brake wave" jam )

So - there is then some need to keep the traffic moving as we do not know what is in that queue.

For example handy:

In a recent incident on M6 which resulted in the motorway around Preston being closed for HOURS last autumn - whole area was completely gridlocked for hours. People were trapped on the motorway. They considered opening the South bound carriageway to the North bound traffic - changed their minds and then decided to do so very late at night. Some of those people had been in a car without food, water or even heat for hours that day.

Preston A&Es were dealing then with more casualties than the Brought in Deads (Colleagues down there try to rescuscitate - based on what paramedics tell them - but if they have not been breathing or taking in oxygen for over three minutes - we cannot bring them back to life as brain is dying out by then) and walking wounded from the original crash. They were dealing with dehydration in several cases.

They also had three almost comatose diabetics in that queue. (they were rescued by paramedics who also had to fight to get to them. One lady with high blood pressure (pregnant) and a couple of elderly in a very distressed state of getting cold as they had switched off engine in that queue. It was Autumn and chilly.

So we have other very potentially serious and even potentially life threatening human problems in these queues and what if one of those waiting got so upset at such a long wait that they suffered a heart attack or required some medication? What about any bloke taking a pregnant wife or sick child to hospital? Cases which are not urgent when they set off but become "urgent" because of getting stuck in a queue?

So there may well be very real and genuine reasons why people might "whinge" over being held up in a traffic jam for any reason for an unduly long amount of time.




So you are not disturbed when you cannot get to work and you do not find an alternative route so that you can get there.

Sally Traffic frequently says "Traffic dreadful due to an accident. Police advise to take an alternative route"

I find this acceptable as let's face it - more traffic adding to the gridlock increases the dangers to the police, fire crews and paramedics and any A&E crash teams at the scene and the gridlock also causes problems getting the injured away to hospital too.

Thus only logical to me that people will be asking for alternative routes and probably staying away is more respectful than "rubber necking" in any case

I am sure you must see this point as you come across to me as one of the nicest and most decent minded blokes I read on 't'internet anyway.


BUT

I do not find this "unacceptable" to want to find alternatives to a traffic jam for whatever cause - nor did I find it "unacceptable" when that police officer drove me to my wife at a very, very high speed (which did not seem fast enough to me at the time) and even remarked that because of the road closure as a result of that crash - he would have to "use an alternative route".



Unfortunately, people have their own lives to get on with and - Andy mate - no disrepect to you - but no one knows the needs of those people who need to get from A to B either.

Some would be parents with dependents and children to pick up from schools or creches. Others might have elderly or sick relatives waiting at home for them and worrying themselves because they have heard there has been a dreadful accident on that route.

So there is much more to "closing a road". The police will have to manage and control that traffic around that area to keep gridlock and inconvenience to a minimum - and in many of these cases - whether it's down to sheer volume of traffic, insufficient police resources assigned to dealing with this traffic management or just weak management of a situation - then this is another aspect of evaluation to learn from these accidents and improve response in the future.

As Big Tone has remarked too - it is not that people do not care or have no regard for others who are bereaved - but life goes on for them and they have decisions to make which affect their loved ones too.

Also - bereavement leave is only given as paid compassionate leave for direct relatives for 3/4 days. Most company policies (big and small concerns) do not grant weeks of leave as life and business go on. If someone dies - they recruit someone take over that job.

It sounds callous as if they do not care. They do as compassionate human beings - but they also have responsibilities to other human beings too.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.