Impact of speeding on wildlife

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco
The best solution I could hope for is to have 100% of meat eaters with the same view as yourself. However the 99%+ that don't give a t0ss where their meat comes from means this is never going to happen.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, I'm a little bit more optimistic than you. Our local butcher now stocks an excellent range of happy meat, and small scale providers of quality, ethically reared produce are doing better now than they have in years. But you're right in that we've still got a heck of a long way to go.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Good to be optimistic. I just see every supermarket I drive past full of cars all day long with people buying the meat that supermarkets provide them. And remember, those supermarkets are giving all those shoppers what they demand - the cheapest product at any cost to the animals!

ACcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

AC, where did I say I wasn't bothered? I have never hit an animal whilst driving but if I did I wouldn't be happy about it.

Yes, you are allowed to be bothered by both. Sorry, forgot you started the thread!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Indeed, you never did say you were bothered Joe, apologies, I've re read the post in question, and made an incorrect inference, whoops!

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
Ignoring some of the other points you made, let's just have a slightly more professional 'design of experiment' shall we?

Consider these two examples where just one variable changes, namely speed.

1. A squirrel runs out from 30 feet away and you are doing 30 mph.
2. A squirrel runs out from 30 feet away and you are doing 60 mph.

In which of these does the squirrel have more chance of survival, all other things being equal?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What a peculiar question. Whenever 'in life' are all other things equal?

I'm not going to bother answering. Its a loaded question, we already know the answer, and its meaningless in the real world.

ACcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab
That each living thing impacts in some ways on other living things, and many of the impacts of the lifestyles we choose can be negative, you're right. But you're still missing the point; that we often have a negative impact on the environment does not excuse us from choosing a mode of living (be it transport, how you shop, what you wear, etc.) which needlessly increases the amount of damage we cause. That even with our best efforts we're still far from perfect does not excuse is from trying, your conclusion there is absolutely flawed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Rubbish. You're saying I'm irresponsible for my lifestyle choices, while defending your own. I'm saying your own choices make your critisism of mine hypocritical.

You have no right to critisise my life without first ensuring that your own life does no damage whatsoever - and the fact that you're here, posting for fun on this forum, sat in a home using electricity and gas filled to the brim with plastic and metal objects, means that you're actually doing a fair amount of damage.

Sort your own house out sir, before critisising others.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. Criticising.
2. Answer the question about the squirrels.

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

Cretin,

As well as stopping distance (which you don't seem to fully understand) you also need to take into account the ability of the animal to react to a speeding predator. A squirrel is unlikely to be faced with a 30mph predator, and will never come up against a 60mph one unless the squirrel is on holiday in Etosha.

A squirrel's natural reactions will almost certainly get it away from a 18mph bicycle.
A squirrel's natural reactions will probably get it away from a 30mph car.
A squirrel has almost no chance with a 60mph car driven by someone who "couldn't care less about wildlife".

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I understand stopping distances better than you do Jaded. I know how to apply them in the real world, and when they are necessary to observe. Do you?

Tell me Jaded, the last time you swallowed a flock of flies while riding, did you hold a service for them when you got home? Or did you just spit them out like everyone else does, and took another swig of your drink?

The last time you passed some roadkill, did you stop and move it out of the road? Or did you just think "ewww" and rode by, holding your breath as you passed?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
1. Criticising.
2. Answer the question about the squirrels.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. Oh look. I made a spelling mistake. My argument therefore falls down like a pack of cards.

2. No. Its a very stupid loaded question that does not consider all variables.

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
Ignoring some of the other points you made, let's just have a slightly more professional 'design of experiment' shall we?

Consider these two examples where just one variable changes, namely speed.

1. A squirrel runs out from 30 feet away and you are doing 30 mph.
2. A squirrel runs out from 30 feet away and you are doing 60 mph.

In which of these does the squirrel have more chance of survival, all other things being equal?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What a peculiar question. Whenever 'in life' are all other things equal?

I'm not going to bother answering. Its a loaded question, we already know the answer, and its meaningless in the real world.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Loved it......

Shows an absolute and breathtaking ignorance....

Any thing that questions my claims or shows me to be mistaken is "meaningless" - superb and well constructed evidential argument!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

Cretin,

As well as stopping distance (which you don't seem to fully understand) you also need to take into account the ability of the animal to react to a speeding predator. A squirrel is unlikely to be faced with a 30mph predator, and will never come up against a 60mph one unless the squirrel is on holiday in Etosha.

A squirrel's natural reactions will almost certainly get it away from a 18mph bicycle.
A squirrel's natural reactions will probably get it away from a 30mph car.
A squirrel has almost no chance with a 60mph car driven by someone who "couldn't care less about wildlife".

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I understand stopping distances better than you do Jaded. I know how to apply them in the real world, and when they are necessary to observe. Do you?

Tell me Jaded, the last time you swallowed a flock of flies while riding, did you hold a service for them when you got home? Or did you just spit them out like everyone else does, and took another swig of your drink?

The last time you passed some roadkill, did you stop and move it out of the road? Or did you just think "ewww" and rode by, holding your breath as you passed?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

We are talking about your squirrel, not about flies.

Evasive as ever. We'll assume you know the answer but aren't prepared to say so.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

ACcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
1. Criticising.
2. Answer the question about the squirrels.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. Oh look. I made a spelling mistake. My argument therefore falls down like a pack of cards.

2. No. Its a very stupid loaded question that does not consider all variables.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think we can now safely say that you agree that higher speeds cause higher wildlife deaths than lower speeds. Phew, hard work, and probably the least gracious of admissions, but we got there in the end.

P.S. Cretin, you were the one that gave the squirrel argument in the first place, but chose to give different distances for the different speeds.

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The last time you passed some roadkill, did you stop and move it out of the road? Or did you just think "ewww" and rode by, holding your breath as you passed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

NO - I ate it!
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hedgehog spaghetti carbonara (serves four)

500g spaghetti, 30ml olive oil, 250g lean hedgehog, 1 medium onion (chopped), 125ml water, 60ml dry white wine, 4 eggs, 60ml double cream, 100g grated parmesan cheese chop hedgehog into small chunks

beat eggs and cream together in a bowl. Add half the parmesan cheese

put pasta in boiling water

put onions and hedgehog chunks in pan with olive oil on medium heat until onions are almost clear

add wine and reduce heat

drain pasta when cooked, combine it with egg, cream and cheese mix

add meat, onions and wine without draining fat and mix thoroughly

garnish with remaining parmesan. Serve immediately<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Arthur Boyt 2006

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

I understand stopping distances better than you do Jaded. I know how to apply them in the real world, and when they are necessary to observe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is interesting that you say that you understand stopping distances, yet you choose an example that is neither fish nor foul. If the distance of the squirrel was the same each time it might make sense. If the distance was related to stopping distance it might make sense.

Why did you choose those distances at those speeds?

Are you saying that in the real world physics doesn't apply?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

ACcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
1. Criticising.
2. Answer the question about the squirrels.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. Oh look. I made a spelling mistake. My argument therefore falls down like a pack of cards.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, your argument fell down without the help of spelling mistakes.

It was just a great bonus that you wrote this: -
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Sort your own house out sir, before critisising others.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It must be so embarrassing to try and have a high brow pop at someone only to trip up through poor spelling.

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
If your computer is for work reasons, then what element of your work requires that you post here? You're using up energy, wasting it. Think of the damage done to local wildlife by those trucks and trains transporting the fuel to and from the power stations.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The computer is turned on anyway, at the moment its doing a job while I post here. I wouldn't turn the computer on specifically to post a comment to you.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
You're using agriculture for your food? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

For some of it. Although 'horticulture' would be better for most of it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
You mean that you're buying from farms that use land formerly the province of wolves, bears, birds, insects, trees, fish, etc? How selfish of you. Why don't you forage for your own food then? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Its actually like you didn't even read my posts...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
How come you're not right now trapesing around the local woods hunting for roots, berries, crickets and wild mushrooms?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Errm... No, you didn't even read my posts [:D] Don't let that get in the way fo a good rant.

(remainder, presumably equally and inexplicably ill informed drivel cut unread).

Heres an idea. When you're in a discussion, read the points put to you, try to assimilate them, and respond appropriately. Its so much more productive than merely ranting away like that.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded
It is interesting that you say that you understand stopping distances, yet you choose an example that is neither fish nor foul. If the distance of the squirrel was the same each time it might make sense. If the distance was related to stopping distance it might make sense.

Why did you choose those distances at those speeds?

Are you saying that in the real world physics doesn't apply?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can you demonstrate an example in the real world where 2 identical squirrels at the same point at the same time would leap in front of 2 vehicles, both doing different speeds, to demonstrate your grasp of physics?

Tell me, if I'm driving the car doing 60mph, why would I not have passed the squirrel long ago, while the car doign 30mph drives past just as our friendly little squirrel decides to jump out? Or perhaps I'd meet the squirrel early and kill it at 60mph, and the person doing 30mph wouldn't even see the squirrel since it would have run across the road long before he got there.

But of course in your 'real world of physics' examples, none of this would happen. The squirrel would wait for 2 cars doing 30 and 60 respectively, at the right time, at the right distance, occupying the same point in the space time continuoum, and leap out to it's inevitable death.

Yes, thats real world physics for you.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC

It must be so embarrassing to try and have a high brow pop at someone only to trip up through poor spelling.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why would it be embarrassing? I find it quite funny, usually the first people to start talking about grammar and spelling are the ones who can't refute the logic of the person they seek to belittle.

And why would I trip up through poor spelling - surely I'd trip over poor spelling?

How embarrassing for you.

ACcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC

It must be so embarrassing to try and have a high brow pop at someone only to trip up through poor spelling.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why would it be embarrassing? I find it quite funny, usually the first people to start talking about grammar and spelling are the ones who can't refute the logic of the person they seek to belittle.

And why would I trip up through poor spelling - surely I'd trip over poor spelling?

How embarrassing for you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh crumbs, got to that level have we? Oh well, just so you know, poor spelling is like a tricky hedge that is to be negotiated. Therefore one trips through it. It's not like grammer which is more like a cobbled surface - one can trip over that for sure.

Sure I'm not the only one that new that, or am I just an expert in tripping?

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

ACcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded
It is interesting that you say that you understand stopping distances, yet you choose an example that is neither fish nor foul. If the distance of the squirrel was the same each time it might make sense. If the distance was related to stopping distance it might make sense.

Why did you choose those distances at those speeds?

Are you saying that in the real world physics doesn't apply?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can you demonstrate an example in the real world where 2 identical squirrels at the same point at the same time would leap in front of 2 vehicles, both doing different speeds, to demonstrate your grasp of physics?

Tell me, if I'm driving the car doing 60mph, why would I not have passed the squirrel long ago, while the car doign 30mph drives past just as our friendly little squirrel decides to jump out? Or perhaps I'd meet the squirrel early and kill it at 60mph, and the person doing 30mph wouldn't even see the squirrel since it would have run across the road long before he got there.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Aha. I'm starting to appreciate the statistical rigour with which the Safe Speed statistics must be calculated.

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Can you demonstrate an example in the real world where 2 identical squirrels at the same point at the same time would leap in front of 2 vehicles, both doing different speeds, to demonstrate your grasp of physics?

<snipped drivel><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Just out of interest, why did you choose squirrels and different speeds in the first place? It seems to be at odds with this post here. [?]

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cunobelin · June 2007

This "experimental" style where made up and differing comparisons to suit the argument is the classic SafeSpeed claim.

Most people realise that the whole point of experimentation is to enable an inquirer to predict an outcome by looking at the evidence of other cases.

You need to realise that only fast vehicles are safe.

Last time we ended up with the claim that all the 30 mph vehicles would have faulty brakes so the stopping distances at 30mph would be the same as a vehicle driving at 60mph!

....and the sad thing is that much of the "evidence" on the site is equally flawed!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
Ignoring some of the other points you made, let's just have a slightly more professional 'design of experiment' shall we?

Consider these two examples where just one variable changes, namely speed.

1. A squirrel runs out from 30 feet away and you are doing 30 mph.
2. A squirrel runs out from 30 feet away and you are doing 60 mph.

In which of these does the squirrel have more chance of survival, all other things being equal?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What a peculiar question. Whenever 'in life' are all other things equal?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's an easy one. When you're driving your car cretin. All things are equal. So if you drive faster then you will cause more damage if you hit someone/something.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC

It must be so embarrassing to try and have a high brow pop at someone only to trip up through poor spelling.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why would it be embarrassing? I find it quite funny, usually the first people to start talking about grammar and spelling are the ones who can't refute the logic of the person they seek to belittle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are those the same ones who constantly use diversionary tactics when they're running out of argument, or say that they're not talking to anyone who comes up with an argument which they don't have an answer for?[;)]

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
Oh crumbs, got to that level have we?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes we have oddly enough. I wonder who got us here?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Are those the same ones who constantly use diversionary tactics when they're running out of argument, or say that they're not talking to anyone who comes up with an argument which they don't have an answer for?[;)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Didn't you sign a pledge? A pledge to ignore 'trolls'? Whoops.

Cunobelin · June 2007

But it is sooooooo much fun!

Shooting fish in a barrel, but no fish harmed in the process!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Are those the same ones who constantly use diversionary tactics when they're running out of argument, or say that they're not talking to anyone who comes up with an argument which they don't have an answer for?[;)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Didn't you sign a pledge? A pledge to ignore 'trolls'? Whoops.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're not a troll, you're a very naughty boy.

Unless you're admitting to a previously hidden agenda?

Oh, and I notice which of my two last posts that you choose to respond to.

How telling...

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

But it is sooooooo much fun!

Shooting fish in a barrel, but no fish harmed in the process!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your foot must be sore though.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
You're not a troll, you're a very naughty boy.

Unless you're admitting to a previously hidden agenda?

Oh, and I notice which of my two last posts that you choose to respond to.

How telling...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh I see. Now I'm not a troll. Would you mind telling your friends in Campaign that?

You'd like me to answer your other post? Ok then. You say if I'm going faster, I'll cause more damage.

Faster than what?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

Lets be honest here, this thread was not started to discuss the impact of speeding on wildlife, it was started to ridicule an individual.
That ridicule may be deserved, but wouldn't it be better if we steered clear of the pretence?

According to local hippy* types, eating meat has a greater impact on wildlife than anything else, speeding doesn't even come close.

I vote to can this thread, it's making buffoons of both sides of the argument (which I will not engage in).

Peace out,
Matt Black.

*by hippies I mean neo-militant vegan extremists[;)]

Wheelies ARE cool.

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your foot must be sore though.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nope, just wet!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cab · June 2007

Guys, cretin is not arguing the point at hand any more. He has never really done so; he hasn't got a point, he knows he hasn't got a point. Leave it.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Impact of speeding on wildlife

Comments

Categories