Mr_Squirrel Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Then you are a speedophile, who is happy to increase child fatalities because you cannot be bothered to leave the house 5 minutes earlier. Speeding drivers pose a significantly higher risk to children than paedophiles do. Speeding drivers kill more children than paedophiles do. If you want to take this discussion to silly proportions, be my guest. If you want to take that stance on it, Stairs pose a bigger risk to children than paedophiles do, as do a great many things in life. Get a grip man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 If you want to take this discussion to silly proportions, be my guest. If you want to take that stance on it, Stairs pose a bigger risk to children than paedophiles do, as do a great many things in life. Get a grip man. You have evidence that stairs kill more children than paedophiles, or is that another made-up fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I know. And I've shown you that lower speeds save lives. You disagree, and have posted nothing of substance to support your view. You have done nothing of the sort except do exactly as i said you would, dismiss anything i posted and claim that your link is proof ignoring what i said earlier about it being a futile exercise. Proving exactly what i already knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You have done nothing of the sort except do exactly as i said you would, dismiss anything i posted and claim that your link is proof ignoring what i said earlier about it being a futile exercise. Proving exactly what i already knew. You disagree that roads are safer with lower speed limits? What's your evidence? Fourth time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 You have evidence that stairs kill more children than paedophiles, or is that another made-up fact? If you think that more children are killed by paedophiles than accidents involving stairs, you are clearly an idiot. This is getting stupid and i bow out to your superior intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 If you think that more children are killed by paedophiles than accidents involving stairs, you are clearly an idiot. I'm asking you, politely, if you have any evidence that stairs are more dangerous to children than paedophiles. Got any? Did you know the single most common cause of death for children under 14 years old is motor cars? Did you know the single most common cause of death for teenage girls is their boyfriend's driving? You are serving as an apologist for the reason children are dying needlessly. It is beyond belief that you will maintain this defence whilst wittering on about stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 All these stats are boring. As Harry Millhouse (noted GATSO field tech) stated in his book 'Speed - Not For The People', the real problem is having cars that can do 0 - 30mph in 12 secs. He concluded that cars of this ilk, had problems with the drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxxy Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Then you are a speedophile, who is happy to increase child fatalities because you cannot be bothered to leave the house 5 minutes earlier. Speeding drivers pose a significantly higher risk to children than paedophiles do. Speeding drivers kill more children than paedophiles do. However the death caused by a paedophile is far more traumatic and horrific. Not sure why you are bringing paedophiles in to the discussion to be honest, unless it's to try and make speeders seem worse. The one thing I despise on this forum is people who say 'you are this' 'you are that' 'you can't be bothered'. You know nothing about me and my lifestyle so you are not qualified to make such pointed judgements. One thing I can't be bothered to do is argue with morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxxy Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Name them. Cite the research. Why? It's a well known fact that statistics are twisted to meet the requirements of those gathering them, usually the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 It was more this sentence that i was referring to.. That implies some degree of 'intention'.... Every time i have been caught, i too was unintentionally speeding and is why i didnt slow down for the camera or speed up again after. I have no problem with speeders (including myself) being prosecuted for it but i disagree with 'Cash Cow' cameras as they simply cannot differentiate between a clear disregard for the law plus dangerous driving and whats clearly an unintentional infringement. I was just thinking, with this theme in mind, how about the following? (This is just a thought bear in mind...) How about all cameras being totally hidden? Then, what about a sliding scale of fines? We could use the 30mph limit as an example for now. Up to, say, 33mph, no action. Or maybe an advisory letter, charging the driver £10 for admin costs, but no points or fine. 34 to 40 mph. £60 fine and 3 points. 41 to 50 mph. £250 fine and 3 points. 50mph +. Minimum £500 fine and compulsory court appearance. The advantage would be that those "just creeping over" the limit will not feel penalised, but their actions would be brought to their attention and they learn from it. Those obtaining the larger fines I'd have absolutly no sympathy for, and their cash can go towards other road safety /police projects. Open to the floor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.