By way of an old school poll, how many people here have criminal convictions. I'm quite staggered by

[Rich]

what I see below, tbh.

I have been convicted of speeding three times in eight years but don't have a criminal record.

In fact, none of my friends have one either (as far as I am aware).

[Pat Vegas]

You don't really do yourself any favours around here imo.

[Berni]

Although I have committed untold numbers of criminal acts.

Still, them's the breaks, I guess.

['Neg]

[Rich]

It's going to kill you. If you're fine with f**king up people's lives then so be it.

Let it go.

[The Rob2]

[Berni]

Assuming you don't count drugs offences as criminal (and what sort of idiot would do that?), I've never known him do anything even vaguely criminal.

[Pat Vegas]

[Berni]

[Billy Goat Sverige]

three occasions and not get one.

I don't have one btw.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Rich]

would become a bit worthless, don't you think?

[Berni]

Driving too fast is a civil offence unless it's so fast as to be considered dangerous driving.

[Rich]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

This is, after all, theft.

[The Rob2]

I was merely making a stand against the ever rising cost of what is a terrible service

Southeastern are the real criminals IMO

[Pat Vegas]

few months later I was emailed an article from someone I know saying he had been arrested for attempted murder with some other people.

I was thinking hmm doesn't seem right. Then later another article came out saying he was the mastermind of the murder and is now banged up.

very strange feeling.

[Brentwood]

[Berni]

[Berni]

[Pat Vegas]

I don't think he died actually. So it was attempted murder.

[Berni]

rather than making a statement, you were actually just trying to save yourself a couple of quid. Had you been making a statement, you'd have been less surreptitious about it and made a big thing of it, no?

[Brentwood]

buy tickets. Then, if they get caught and receive a fine, they just send it in and it gets payed for. Kind of like buying insurance against getting a fine

[Berni]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[:hehe:]

:hehe:

[Berni]

[The Rob2]

and yeah you're right it was to save a few quid

[Pokster]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Stealing is wrong.

[Pokster]

than being hit at 15mph

[Berni]

They're mostly carelessness, bad conditions, stupidity. Not speed.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Or, better, 5 mph. We could have a man with flag walking in front of the car to warn onlookers not to throw themselves underneath the wheels.

[The Rob2]

[Berni]

your position, after all.

[Berni]

[:hehe:]

The shortage of law enforcement also adds to the appeal.

[Pokster]

The risk of a pedestrian who is hit by a car being killed increases slowly until impact speeds of around 30 mph. Above this speed, the risk increases rapidly, so that a pedestrian who is hit by a car travelling at between 30 mph and 40 mph is between 3.5 and 5.5 times more likely to be killed than if hit by a car travelling at below 30 mph

[Pokster]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Pretty it up all you will, you're a self-confessed thief.

Nice.

[Pokster]

[Berni]

Those Aston Martins are rather pricey, aren't they? I shall nick one by way of complaint.

[Pokster]

[Brentwood]

But rather show you the survival rates

http://raisethehammer.org/static/images/pedestrian_injuries_at_impact_speeds.jpg

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

As if cars routinely drive down pavements mowing down pedestrians?

The truth of the matter is that pedestrians hit cars, not the other way around.

[The Rob2]

these trains would run regardless of whether I was on them

I doubt the 10 stone I add would make much difference in terms of fuel

[:hehe:]

Jesus Christ

[Berni]

articulated lorry, so articulated lorries ought to be banned.

There is simply no logical connection between the points you state and the argument I'm making.

[Camp Freddie]

[Ashberto]

Have you tried driving that slow? Cyclists overtake you, FFS.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

the car and the driver's skill and experience?

How can one signposted speed be of any use in making that decision? You, driving a car at 30 mph, are around 400 times more likely to kill a pedestrian than me driving at 60. :shrug:

Speed limits are nonsensical, one-size-fits-all socialist rubbish.

[:hehe:]

What's easier to steal?
A road vehicle or a movie? :rubchin:

[Berni]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

You have stolen money directly from the pockets of your fellow passengers. Congratulations, you're clearly a very cool rebel.

[Pokster]

or do you only drive where there are no other cars or pedestrians

[:hehe:]

:hehe:

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Unless I can see a camera, naturally.

[Pokster]

death will occur if you hit a pedestrian

Country
Date
Number of injuries examined
Risk of fatal injury at 30mph
Increased risk of fatal injury between 30 and 40mph

UK
1970s
358
~9%
5.5 times more likely

Germany
1999-2007
490 (excludes children under 15)
7%
3.5 times more likely

UK
2000-2009
197
7%
4.5 times more likely

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Berni]

Thus motorways, A roads, Dual Carriageways I can go as fast as I like, yes?

[:hehe:]

[Brentwood]

So a set of stats showing that accidents can happen at any speed, but that those at high speed are much more likely to endanger lives is irrelevant?

[Camp Freddie]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Furthermore, you're the sort of person who thinks that it is the car which is to blame when a pedestrian hurls himself under it, displaying a singular lack of spatial awareness.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Thief.

[:hehe:]

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

Reformed now.

[The Rob2]

[:hehe:]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Who knows what else you're capable of?

[Pokster]

[Berni]

how are you drawing this arbitrary line whereby some levels of threat are acceptable, but others need to be legislated about? It is your total lack of a coherent and logical argument that I am complaining about. Simply repeatedly and dogmatically pointing at physics is not an argument.

[Harry Balls]

There were some (seemingly) mitigating circumstances at the time.

[Rich]

[:hehe:]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

We pay taxes for the common good; it is a fundamental tenet of our society that everyone chips in his bit to make the whole work for everyone. It's the same with public transport, we all pay a proportion so that everyone can use the system at a reasonable cost. You're so pleased with yourself for spending weeks bunking over the barrier, but this just means that everyone else has to pay more to make up for people like you not paying their share.

So it's theft, not just from the rail company, but, essentially, from your fellow passengers.

I'm not that fussed. I don't really use trains and when I do I don't care what they cost. But it does grit my **** seeing you brag about it.

[Pokster]

and these facts ruin your own ideas for which you have no evidence to back up means I am incorrect... great reasoning b

[Berni]

extremely slim possibility that some arse of a pedestrian is going to throw themselves under the wheels is what I take issue with. The mere fact that something represents a possible danger is not justification for legislating about it.

[Rich]

[The Rob2]

but I don't care

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[Pokster]

http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=562839 &mid=3851624&rid=8&S=f72873d43160191d1b4a2bffeec 99e01&rev=&reveal= (http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=562839&mid=3851624&rid=8&S=f72873d43160191d1b4a2bffeec99e01&rev=&reveal=)

[Rich]

means one is more likely to kill if one hits a pedestrian?

Jesus wept you are simple.

[Berni]

You've sort of made Rich's point for him, there.

[Pokster]

Christ, being called simple by you is quite something
http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=562839 &mid=3851628&rid=8&S=f72873d43160191d1b4a2bffeec 99e01&rev=&reveal= (http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=562839&mid=3851628&rid=8&S=f72873d43160191d1b4a2bffeec99e01&rev=&reveal=)

[Pokster]

http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=562839 &mid=3851628&rid=8&S=f72873d43160191d1b4a2bffeec 99e01&rev=&reveal= (http://www.awimb.com/fudforum/index.php?t=tree&th=562839&mid=3851628&rid=8&S=f72873d43160191d1b4a2bffeec99e01&rev=&reveal=)

[Berni]

You're really not doing awfully well here, p.

[Pokster]

which I do believe is what I said originally and you said in your experience (whatever that is) it doesn't

[Pokster]

[Pioneer]

Maybe drive a bit more carefully?

[Berni]

there.

[Pokster]

he isn't funny either

[Berni]

fast I'm going has little or no bearing on that.

Why do you struggle so with this concept?

[Pokster]

that if you are travelling at yy speed you have less time to react than if you are travelling at yy x2 , so if you have less time to react at the higher speed you are more likely to hit something (or someone).... and if a pedestrain is used to cars travelling at a certain speed, you in your smart car travelling at your higher speed means they are more likely to do step out in front of you.

I know I am being simplistic but I would have guessed that that is why in school areas you are only meant to travel at 20mph so giving you, and poor council housed child, more time to react

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

[:hehe:]

[Pokster]

[Berni]

the likelihood of an accident.

Here's a hint: You won't.

[Berni]

car than those from privately-owned or even rented accommodation. Do you?

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

He may have a point.