Re: Jailed for speeding?? C'mon...

Bernd Felsche wrote:
> the_dawggie <the_dawggie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> David Z wrote:
> 
>>> The sentence is ridiculous.  It's akin to giving someone a longer 
>>> sentence for murdering someone with a machine gun as opposed to say, a

>>> handgun (based on the theory that the machine gun has the "potential"
to 
>>> do much more damage).  Murder is murder, plain and simple.  Just
because 
>>> he had the potential to do more damage at 255 km/h than say, 155 km/h,

>>> the offense is still exactly the same.
> 
>> not so recent research shows us that:
> 
>> KE == 1/2 * M * V ** 2
> 
>> I'd dare suggest that 255 != 155, Radically
>> different. At both speeds everything would be
>> cactus, however that is not the point.
> 
> Kinetic energy is quite irrelevant. Attempting to use physics in an
> argument about road safety is irrelevant.
> 
> Road safety is first and foremost about attitude.

Agreed.

> An idiot at 30 km/h is still as dangerous as at 250 km/h.

So I made the "that is not the point" comment.

> If you want to apply physics to road safety, then you can start with
> the traffic environment; in which councils plant trees in the middle
> of the road and governments place fla****ng propaganda signs on the
> hard shoulder of freeways.

Yup, they should not be there. Objects that prevent a distraction
IMHO as in fla****ng signs saying "watch out for cyclists" and other
not relevant stuff when they don't have anything usefull to say
should not be there, and they certainly should not be fla****ng,
and especially not between two parts to make up the message.