Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

S'alright. The cagers more than make up the difference.

A

 

Yes, but is it the only type of violent crime we want to eradicate?

Yes, but are the majority of violent crimes committed with a motor vehicle
as the weapon?

Why?

 

But it /was/ clearly stated in the post to which you responded
'Wrong.'


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

It is isn't it? But whether it is or it isn't how does that relate to the
claim "Other criminals pose less risk to society than careless motorists"?

Well we don't have to all walk throught body scanners at every street
corner, so they're obviously not seen to be that significant.

Cite actual figures please.

 

Huge () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Erm, no, it wasn't. Huge's incorrect blanket statement has not been
snipped one iota, even this far down the thread.

<cft38e$45u$> is the original, if you want to double
check. That statement, as it stands, is clearly incorrect. Speed limits
*DO* apply to vehicles being used on police business, with one clearly
defined exemption that applies to a small percentage of the total time
and mileage of vehicles used on police business.

Huge seems to have accepted this by throwing his toys out of the pram and
hiding.

 

Huge () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Erm, no, it wasn't. Huge's incorrect blanket statement has not been
snipped one iota, even this far down the thread.

<cft38e$45u$> is the original, if you want to double
check. That statement, as it stands, is clearly incorrect. Speed limits
*DO* apply to vehicles being used on police business, with one clearly
defined exemption that applies to a small percentage of the total time
and mileage of vehicles used on police business.

Huge seems to have accepted this by throwing his toys out of the pram and
hiding.

 

Yes, I have. and, if you'd read the original post, you'd have seen my
discussion of it.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:46:43 +0100, "Matt B"

Yes, they are. (based on fatalities)

Are the majority of wilful assaults carried out using cars as the
weapon? No.

Fisticuffs are much more common.

Good question. If you can get an answer to that one, I'm sure lots of
folk would be interested to know.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

As an example, The following are from
http://www.economist.com/research/a...ayStory.cfm?story_id=1012025&subjectid=348942

"Firearms kill more children in the United States than any other cause
except motor-vehicle crashes and cancer. Over the period studied,
1988-97, nearly 7,000 children aged between five and 14 were killed
with firearms. Before an American child reaches 15, he or she is 12
times more likely to die of gunshot wounds than a child anywhere else
in the industrialised world."

For comparison, there are about 3 times as many road deaths per capita
in the USA as in the UK, and about 40 times as many gun deaths in the
USA as in the UK.

And even so, in the USA cars kill more people.

(The most recent totals I know of for the USA are 12,000-odd gun
homicides per year[1], and ~44,000 road deaths per year)

(now also available via
http://html.dnasalis.net/cycling/usgundeaths.gif )

For more UK-specific stuff, here's an article from August 2000
http://www.economist.com/research/a...layStory.cfm?story_ID=343332&subjectid=348942

"Offences involving firearms (not counting airguns) dropped from 5,209
in 1996 to 3,143 last year, with a particular decline in the use of
guns for robbery. The number of murders where a gun was used also
declined, from an average of 62 a year in England and Wales in the
three years before tougher gun laws were introduced in 1997, to 54 a
year on average since then. (In comparison there were 32,436 deaths
due to gun violence in America in 1997, of which 13,252 were
murders.)"

In comparison with that 54 murders involving a gun for England and
Wales in 1999, there were going on 4,000 road deaths in the UK last
year.








--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

How many traffic accident fatalities resulted in criminal convictions last
year?

So it would be more productive to tag individuals rather than cars? Or are
you only interested in catching motorists?

Do you have reference to the cases you are refering to?

 

What was your actual speed? If people were doing 34.9 and being charged for
35 there would be an almighty wailing and gnashing of teeth up & down the
land about the "unfairness" of it. Now, if you had actually being doing
36.9, are you going to complain?

 

Other violent crimes have low conviction rates, of course.

A

 

OK, I get the picture. You assume that _all_ deaths resulting from motoring
accidents were a deliberate pre-meditated act of violence. In that case
reasonable discussion ceases to be possible. Thank you for your time.

 

DavidR (david.nospam.r_a@t_cwcom.net) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

35, according to the NIP.

According to my GPS, that translates to around 55kph on the speedo.

A small margin considering it was 11.30 on a clear dry Monday night, no
peds or cars in sight, on a w-i-d-e A-road.

 

You don't get the point do you? Do you really think that because your NIP
said 35, you were doing exactly 35.00000?

No, they are bound to round it down to protect themselves.

 

DavidR (david.nospam.r_a@t_cwcom.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Yes. I'm merely pointing out that I'm not doing a "yebbut, my speedo said
something different" whine.

I was speeding, I knew it, it's a fair cop. Besides, even if it was
borderline, it makes up for all the times I've got away with far greater
speeds.

Of course not. I'm not sure the difference between 34.5 and 35.499 makes a
massive difference to anything much, though. I'm also pointing out that it
was in no way a "dangerous" offence.

The original Gatso photos I've seen (not me, a friend) give no decimal
places, either - not that Thames Valley will send you them unless you
refuse the fixed penalty.

If you're implying that I "may" have been doing something very close to 36,
close enough that it would count as 36 for the magistrate, then I'd suggest
that's what they'd have put on the NIP, instead of risking it being thrown
out for inconsistency.

 

It was more dangerous than had you been doing 30.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

There were less hazards and far more road space (as well as far wider
pavements) than many 40, 50 or even NSL limits.

 

But the French Motorway death rate is higher then the German one, even
though it's a lower speed
(http://www.pacts.org.uk/parliament/briefings/motorwayspeed.pdf)

 

IIRC this was one of the ways Nuclear Electric managed to undermine wave
power, by comparing the historical cost per MW of a nuclear station
(ignoring decommissioning) with their forecast cost per MW of wave power,
based on the then-current cost of building nuclear rather than the costs
provided by manufacturers bidding to build the wave power stations.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University