Impact of speeding on wildlife

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

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

Faster than if you were going slower, silly.

Don't try to overcomplicate things cretin. You're being given clear answers that even the squirrel could understand, and you try to complicate things in a failed attempt to confuse your way out of a hole. All it does is make it look like you have no idea what you are talking about. But you do know the deal. You have no place to go but to try to create smoke.

You driving your car cretin is always all things being equal, if speed is the only factor we are talking about changing.

If you don't understand that then you don't have the intelligence to be safe behind the wheel. If you do understand it but are trying to build an argument with the best tools that you have, then I wouldn't bother. It really isn't working.

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

Joe Sacco · June 2007

The only argument where going faster is better for the squirrel is that the squirrel would run out behind your car rather than in front of it.

Yes, I know it is a silly argument!

ACcp · June 2007

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

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

Matt, I started the thread because I genuinely have a concern for wildlife, and I think it is a valid enough concern to merit encouraging people to drive more appropriately in the countryside to reduce their impact on wildlife (let alone all the other users of the roads).

Sounds like your not that bothered yourself - perhaps a better approach is to just let those that are bothered crack on, after all, I've not mentioned wheelies once - and I think they are rubbish (well since I fell off on the road bike trying to do one recently!)

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

formerlyknownasbonj · June 2007

Dare I venture forward the notion that deers should be locked up securely behind fences, or do they have 'more right to be on the road than motorists'? [;)]

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Faster than if you were going slower, silly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Slower? Faster? Relative terms. Relative to what? What speed would you like me to travel at Mister Paul? What all-encompassing speed meets your evangelical requirements?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Don't try to overcomplicate things cretin. You're being given clear answers that even the squirrel could understand, and you try to complicate things in a failed attempt to confuse your way out of a hole. All it does is make it look like you have no idea what you are talking about. But you do know the deal. You have no place to go but to try to create smoke.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh I see. So your answers are the truth, the path to enlightenment. No other answers are valid - this reinforces exactly what I suspected about you long ago. You're not interested in debate. I wondered how long it would take before we got back to the little insults and character assassination.

Lets make this clear. You spend your days on Google looking for things to reinforce your beliefs. I spend my days in the real world using my intuition and skills.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about as soon as Google draws a blank. You are a waste of time, I don't know why I bothered.

Go on, have the last word like you always do. I won't bother reading it, but your acolytes will, and you'll once again bask in their praise.

Just in case you forgot, here you are again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOHhV1EFe4

Cretin · June 2007

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

The only argument where going faster is better for the squirrel is that the squirrel would run out behind your car rather than in front of it.

Yes, I know it is a silly argument!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But one that is perfectly valid, and the one that happens in the real world. Some people here seem to think that squirrels act as though they're in a laboratory test.

Joe Sacco · 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 Joe Sacco

The only argument where going faster is better for the squirrel is that the squirrel would run out behind your car rather than in front of it.

Yes, I know it is a silly argument!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But one that is perfectly valid, and the one that happens in the real world. Some people here seem to think that squirrels act as though they're in a laboratory test.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Only valid for that squirrel though. The next squirrel may not have been hit if you were going slower which is why it is a silly argument.

Cretin · June 2007

Exactly the point I have repeatedly tried to make Joe.

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
Faster than if you were going slower, silly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Slower? Faster? Relative terms. Relative to what? What speed would you like me to travel at Mister Paul? What all-encompassing speed meets your evangelical requirements? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I do hope you're not trying the old diversion again cretin.

The faster you drive, the more damage/injury you will cause if you hit something. Basic physics.

Yet you speed apologists start banging on about improving driving standards, speed not being the only issue, etc etc.

But we're talking about the individual cretin. You, if you like. And as an individual, when you are behind the wheel, all other things are equal (time, environment, conditions) when you choose your speed. So your diversionary waffle about standards etc is irrelevant, and no argument against physics.

Cue more blathering...
<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
Don't try to overcomplicate things cretin. You're being given clear answers that even the squirrel could understand, and you try to complicate things in a failed attempt to confuse your way out of a hole. All it does is make it look like you have no idea what you are talking about. But you do know the deal. You have no place to go but to try to create smoke.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh I see. So your answers are the truth, the path to enlightenment. No other answers are valid - this reinforces exactly what I suspected about you long ago. You're not interested in debate. I wondered how long it would take before we got back to the little insults and character assassination.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The wrong answers aren't valid, no. And I see that you don't dispute what I am saying, but instead and again start banging on at a tangent.

You're not debating. You're not arguing anything about choosing speed, and the effects of increasing speed, or road safety, or the negatives to 20mph limits, or how you have accidentally given a perfect example of why we need speed limits. You're just completely off the debate.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Lets make this clear. You spend your days on Google looking for things to reinforce your beliefs. I spend my days in the real world using my intuition and skills.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Wrong. You have no idea about my driving/road use experience.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about as soon as Google draws a blank. You are a waste of time, I don't know why I bothered.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Again, you're off the debate, and just making things personal, while at the same time claiming that I am making things personal. You offer no reason why you think I have no idea what I'm talking about.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Go on, have the last word like you always do. I won't bother reading it, but your acolytes will, and you'll once again bask in their praise.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Off the debate. Again. No questions answered. Again. No response to the valid and reasonable arguments. Again.

Three or four times now I've offered reasonable counters to your arguments. Three or four times you've made no attempt to respond in the debate. So instead you just ramble on with your diversionary guff. Or state that you're going to stop debating.

So, cretin,

If you ever do want to continue the debate perhaps you could respond to the points put to you, from me and from others on here. They're mainly reasonable points, and they throw doubt on your argument as put forward by you to this point. That's how it works. Then we could take it from there. It's entirely up to you. If you're not interested in doing that then one really has to wonder what you're doing here. Your comments on cycling stopped a long time ago.

__________________________________________________________
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 Joe Sacco

The only argument where going faster is better for the squirrel is that the squirrel would run out behind your car rather than in front of it.

Yes, I know it is a silly argument!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But one that is perfectly valid, and the one that happens in the real world. Some people here seem to think that squirrels act as though they're in a laboratory test.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Here we go. You'll be saying next that the faster you drive the less time you are on the road and likely to cause an accident.

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

Archcp · June 2007

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

Dare I venture forward the notion that deers should be locked up securely behind fences, or do they have 'more right to be on the road than motorists'? [;)]

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

Deer, dear. The plural of deer, is deer, dear.
[;)]

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

rothbook · June 2007

Doh!

A deer!

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

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

Matt, I started the thread because I genuinely have a concern for wildlife, and I think it is a valid enough concern to merit encouraging people to drive more appropriately in the countryside to reduce their impact on wildlife (let alone all the other users of the roads).

Sounds like your not that bothered yourself - perhaps a better approach is to just let those that are bothered crack on, after all, I've not mentioned wheelies once - and I think they are rubbish (well since I fell off on the road bike trying to do one recently!)

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

Fair do's, I initially sensed agenda.

I myself am bothered, and spend considerable amounts of money on buying animals that have had (up until the point of harvest) a good quality of life.
If I hunt any animal I ensure I kill it as quickly as is possible.

I'm considered a wierdo by a lot of people because I regard the "sport" of fishing as cruel, despite being happy to hunt and eat fish

Wheelies ARE cool.

Cunobelin · June 2007

My apologies for this - I accept the humour is bad, almost unforgivable, but it has to be done!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Doh!

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

DO - a deer, a female deer
RE - a drop of golden sun
MI - a name, I call myself
FA - a long long way to run
SO - a needle pulling thread
LA - a note to follow SO
TI - a drink with jam and bread
That will bring us back to do oh oh oh

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.)

Cunobelin · June 2007

OK = lets go for a demonstrable real life scenario......

Vicious squirrel[/quote] attacks a car travelling at 5 mph (my insertion) 30 mph and 60mph

At which speed is it more likely to survive?

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.)

Cunobelin · June 2007

bump!

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

I wouldn't hold your breath, Cuno. Like on the cost of training drivers subject, he tends to back off when it gets to the difficult questions.

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

clarkson · July 2007

to be honest, hitting anything at over about 10/15mph in something weighing about a tonne is going to either a kill it or b, severly injure it.

Cretin · July 2007

Jaded wrote:

I wouldn't hold your breath, Cuno. Like on the cost of training drivers subject, he tends to back off when it gets to the difficult questions.

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

Or the stupid questions.

Impact of speeding on wildlife

Comments

Categories