Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

(etc)

So 150mph will be more than twice as far (1.5^2), well over 200m. The
highway code figure for a typical car from 70mph is 75m, assuming your
quoted bike figures are actual braking distance, excluding thinking time.

James

 

The scale of the 'problem' with the after effects of 'certain nutters'
should imply a very definite yes to the answer.

Drivers cause thousands of deaths and serious injuries, millions of
pounds of damage and assorted other economic effects. If this is down to
'certain nutters' then the qualification to be a nutter is low enough
for solutions to be put in place that can really make a difference.

Making it harder to use a car is own. Making it harder to continue using
a car following proof that you can't be trusted to be safe and/or legal
is another.

So yes, penalise/blame the totality, because the problem is too serious
to merely sweep it under the carpet just to avoid hurting a few
sensibilities.

 

So it was. And distance is Clearly Bollocks. And I suspect so is time, but
I can't be arsed to work through Newton's equations right now.

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

 

In what way is that an answer?

 

How many were treated as crimes?

 

Only to clueless dickwads whose grasp of physics is on a par with a seaslug.

James

 

Ooh! Me, please! I know this!

Far too few.

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

 

No. Just the few of these that are caused by some sort of criminal
wrecklessness.

And what is that supposed to prove? Was it as a result of a motor accident?
Was it her own fault? Was there a prosecution?

Do you have the actual proportion 1%, 2% or whatever of the 4000 road deaths
that were caused by some sort of criminal or wreckless event? We all know
that each road death is thoroughly investigated by the police, to a similar,
if not greater extent than any other type of sudden, accidental or
suspicious death.

 

Requires (slightly over) double the (negative) acceleration. Within
the realms of possibility, but unlikely if a Ford Zephyr/Cortina could
hit 0.5 G.

A

 

In that it shows that just because there's no conviction doesn't mean
no crime was committed.

A

 

One feels duty bound to point out that whilst someone who is involved in an
accident may indeed have been reckless, they are most certainly not
wreckless.

...d

 

That wasn't the question though, was it. How many?

 

Not enough, as Guy said.

If you want to know, you look it up.

My perception is that it is not treated as a serious crime when
someone is killed with a motor vehicle even when laws on how motor
vehicles are used that are well known to all who use motor vehicles
have been broken. Your perception is that this is not criminal.

I may have expressed your view more succinctly, but I prefer mine.

A

 

Actually we don't know that. But we do know, interestingly, that where a
detailed investigation /is/ done, the cause is more likely to be recorded as
excessive speed.

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

 

Good point - the power of spell-checkers eh! ;-)

 

I'm not claiming "the majority of violent crimes [are] committed with a
motor vehicle as the weapon". I think that claim needs statistical support.

Have you ever been trapped on a motorway for several hours whilst the
evidence and circumstances are investigated by the police? I think you'll
find that _every_ road death is investigated _very_ thoroughly indeed. And
I'm sure that if there was _any_ opportunity for a criminal charge, one
would surely be made.

I'm confident that if there was evidence of a criminal act it would be
remorslessly pursued.

 

As ever, you miss the point. If he'd done 30, you could equally have said
"It was more dangerous than had you been doing 20". And homosexuality used
to be illegal. Laws change, sometimes they are right, sometimes they aren't.

 

Then you would be wrong. Large numbers of serious and fatal road crashes
receiveonly the most cursory investigation, and in many cases involving
cyclist fatalities, for example (an example quoted only because one or two
of us on urc collect such things), the charges brought are not even as
serious as drink-driving.

Why is it that drink-driving, which carries a risk of causing death, is
subject to mandatory disqualification, when the going rate for careless
driving which actually causes death is 6 points and a fine of around £200?

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

 

I dont. Residential side streets should be 15 or 20, and backed up by
cameras outside schools. Through roads should be designed for through
movement, i.e. no traffic light "calming", no needless reduction in
limits, etc.

They arent, this encourages ratruns, which means higher KSIs.

 

Of course he could. Do you know the stopping distance of a bike and rider
at 150 that begins breaking 20m from a parked lorry? It's 20m. That's
bloody good stopping.