Brunstrom is a twat

Your earlier comment, and mine, made no reference to speed. You just
said "somewhere to have 'fun'". I have fun on my little Honda 125, top
speed 60.

 

From what we know of the accident, it was little to do with excess speed.
The bike failed to see a car in a hidden dip and hit it head-on (one of them
must have been overtaking). The biker was doing, according to reports,
95mph. Let's assume the car was within the limit at 50mph. That gives a
closing speed of 145mph - enough to kill the biker in a grisly manner. Say
the biker was also well within the limit - 50 again, a nice modest speed.
Closing speed 100mph. Survivable? I doubt it. The accident was caused by
his faulty observation and/or reckless attitude to overtaking - the speed
merely made sure he was more dead than he otherwise might have been. The
decapitation was an additional detail that made the image shocking and
newsworthy, but had nothing whatever to do with the cause of the accident.

I overtook a line of cars while out on a run this weekend at exactly the
same speed, on the same kind of road, as the dead biker. The fact I am
alive today and he is not is because I correctly observed that I could carry
out the manoeuvre safely, not because I am a slowcoach.

You are assuming that accidents involving high speed are necessarily
accidents caused by high speed. This is bad logic.

 

Towing a plastic shed 50 miles down the road to spend a week in a field
isn't 'life'....

 

No.

 

Few things (like putting a loaded gun against your forehead and pulling
the trigger and so on) are 'intrinsically dangerous'. I reckon that
biking is just a lot less forgiving of cock-ups, than is car driving.
But the riding itself isn't dangerous _per se_.

IMO, of course.

D.

 

Nothing succeeds like a toothless budgie.

 

Surely you mean that only one journalist has shown himself to be a twat by
betraying a confidence. Or are you so naive that you really do think
Brunstrom is the only one who shows journos this kind of material?

 

If I did not have an accident, it was safe to do whatever I did.

 

I've been shown it.

 

Keith G says...

"Ma ho"

--
Lozzo
Triumph Daytona 955i SE (Black with added black bits)
Suzuki GSX-R750L trackbike (Shite with added shite bits)
Yamaha SR250 Cheasy-Rider (undergoing a transformation)
I ride way too fast to worry about cholestorol.

 

Why then were police officers confiscating cameras from members of the
public who photographed the scene of a fatal accident recently? Surely
the photographs the public took were their copyright, the cameras were
their private property, the accident occured in a public place.

Are you now condemning the police officers who took it upon themselves
to act outside the law?

 

SteveH says...

It's not often I agree with you, Steve, but on this occasion I'll openly
admit you're 100% on the button.

--
Lozzo
Triumph Daytona 955i SE (Black with added black bits)
Suzuki GSX-R750L trackbike (Shite with added shite bits)
Yamaha SR250 Cheasy-Rider (undergoing a transformation)
I ride way too fast to worry about cholestorol.

 

http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/offensive/

 

OOooh no.

There's also the (now ex) CC of North Yorkshire as well.

 

What confidence would that be Brim? Brunstrom has not stated that the
meeting was subject to any reporting restrictions.

 

Not even that, if the safety is on.

 

No it isn't.

Yes it does.

Yes I do, but I don't have the rosy glow about fuckwit journalists that
you do.

Yes, I could get a press officer to slap a D-notice on a journalist. Yes
I can negotiate an embargo with a jounalist. Yes, I hold off-the-record
briefings with a journalist believing that the carrot of more to come
and the stick of being cut off from further briefings will prevent the
journalist from disclosing information.

But once one has talked to a journalist the door is open and there's
nothign short of assassination will stop the bastard publishing if he
wants to. And that's how anyone, other than a complete moron, will treat
any journalist - as an open door.

One of my former colleagues made the mistake of briefing a journalist
off-record. The subsequent mess is still echoing, with of course all the
journalists involved trying to wash their hands of their involvement.

Go on, give me your take on how things are different. Instead of mincing
around like a fairy in a pink tutu.

 

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

 

Or the Tibetan proverb: better to live one day as a tiger than a thousand
years as a sheep.

 

OK, you want to know why your original statement:

"Like you have no doubt that showing a photograph to a journalist means
that he will not report what he has seen?"

can be taken as bollocks?

When the journalist concerned knows he'll have his arse sued for
defamation, to hell and beyond, for millions.

<Dusts off hands, wanders off>

Thanks for playing.