Lost Login Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I agree with Floyd - we seem harder on 'potential damage' than actual damage. So if I have a pot shot you and miss that is OK as it was only attempted murder rather than murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 So if I have a pot shot you and miss that is OK as it was only attempted murder rather than murder. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbones Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 So if I have a pot shot you and miss that is OK as it was only attempted murder rather than murder. I hink attempted murder should carry a more severe punishment for the added incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I agree with Floyd - we seem harder on 'potential damage' than actual damage. So if I have a pot shot you and miss that is OK as it was only attempted murder rather than murder. Depends on whether you're attempting to damage me. This guy didn't go out with the intention of crashing, nor did he. He probably saw a nice long straight with nothing on it and thought he'd have a quick blast. If he did a similar speed on a bike here, safely in a derestricted zone, it would go completely unremarked (cue thread derail). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I agree with Floyd - we seem harder on 'potential damage' than actual damage. So if I have a pot shot you and miss that is OK as it was only attempted murder rather than murder. Depends on whether you're attempting to damage me. This guy didn't go out with the intention of crashing, nor did he. He probably saw a nice long straight with nothing on it and thought he'd have a quick blast. If he did a similar speed on a bike here, safely in a derestricted zone, it would go completely unremarked (cue thread derail). If he did the same thing over here I would expect the full force of the law to be thrown at him. I'm flabeergasted that you can't see the danger that this guy posed to other road users. There is no way he would have been able to react. As stated before the stopping distance would be around just under 400 meters. He was travelling 80 meters per second. Honestly you speed freaks won't be satisfied until you've killed someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 If he did a similar speed on a bike here, safely in a derestricted zone, it would go completely unremarked (cue thread derail). Derestricted zone or not, that speed can never be safe on a public road open to general traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.