Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Eric

Lewis Gets Owned By Police

Recommended Posts

Hang on a minute.... Eric, you're young - you are supposed to be sticking two fingers up at the establishment and driving everywhere at 100mph. :)

I'm the middle-aged boring old fart, I'm supposed to be the one doing 25 in a 40 zone (wearing a hat, as its always hat-wearers who drive slowest) :)

I'm starting to think Invasion of the Body Snatchers is becoming real... (or is it the Stepford Husbands??? :) )

I'm not really young at all. I had my stupidity period in life. Then my friend died in a drunk driving crash and I became responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like many f1 fans are not really petrol heads :D haha

I must say..after reading all of this I am for the first time in my life happy that I live in poland :D

Let me tell you few things about speeding from pole point of view.

First of all roads in poland are not that good..lot worse than you might ever think.

Speed limits are :

town - 30 mph (from 22.pm to 6 am it's 38)

regular public road - 55

fast lane road - 62 or 70

highway - 82

and there's absolutely no doubt (apart from towns) that there is no possibility of driving without speeding.

I've tried once to drive about 20 miles on a public road keeping withing speed limit...everything overtook me, even a bus and few heavy trucks.

reality on regular public road is everybody cruising at about 70 if there are no traffic jams etc.

and it's about the same everywhere else +10-15 miles above the speed limit.

usually police hunting territories are certain places with lower speed limits - where speeding could really be dangerous. same thing with speed cameras.

penalties for speeding are not to high - for example if I get caught at 120 mph in a city I get 10 points and 100 pounds off my wallet. which means I can do this 3 times before they take away my driving license.

It may look weird for you. But here somebody doing 120+ on a public s##tty road or even in town at night isn't really nothing unusual.

And as far as I can tell, this system works quite fine, cause according to police research speeding isn't the real problem itself. Only when it's combined with few other things which are really cause of danger.

For example if you give a shotgun to a regular man he will go to the shooting range, but if you give it to psycho he'll go and kill somebody. That's the problem cause car as we know could become a very deadly machine in wrong hands. Unfortunately it's very easy to buy a car and it's very easy to pass the driving test. From the very start - driving schools do not provide proper driving skills to students. But that's not all. Most people don't really have driving talents. It's enough to drive a car, cause even monkey could do it, but often it's not enough in dangerous situations. Then it get even worse, cause different people have many different point of views. Some think that they can drive well, some think they can drive while drunk or on xtc, others can't really focus on what they're doing at the wheel etc etc. If some of those factors combine then dangerous situations are possible.

But there's absolutely nothing that can change it (maybe auto pilot in every car :D ).

My point is that I'd rather be in a car with LH while he's drunk and doing 120 mph or with MS trying to drive across germany as fast as it's possible than for example my friend who's thinking of himself as a great fast driver, but in fact he's a jerk. Why? Cause I'd feel safer knowing that the man at the wheel knows what he's doing and he can handle a car even at very high speed whereas my friend can't handle 80 HP honda and he's dangerous even when he's doing 30 in town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods but yes you do get tickets for doing ten over the speed limit in the U.S.

Speed does have a lot to do with it but there is a bit of luck involved.

If your in a car that isn't red, yellow, or electric blue and are going less than 10 over, the cops won't waste their energy on you. If you are in a sports car, supercar, gay boy racer car, etc. the cops will nab you for 1 over. Everyone here goes 75-80 on the 65-mph highway, and no one gets pulled over, and they don't slow down near cops.

You make your own luck. Don't speed, don't have to rely on luck. Luck is too unstable to rely on; your luck will run out someday and then what? And what if you make someone else's run out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carmageddon anyone? Wish that game gets re-released with snazzy graphics. You get rewarded for killing people by driving the car as fast as possible. What can be more fun than that? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank God it was in France...

Imagine it had been in Spain...

Oh, yes they wouldn't have caught him...

Ha, Ha, Ha.

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carmageddon anyone? Wish that game gets re-released with snazzy graphics. You get rewarded for killing people by driving the car as fast as possible. What can be more stupid than that? :)

Quite right, nothing can be more stupid than that. Not only is it a pointless video game, it's killing people on a video game. How stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, speeding is bad. Hamilton shouldn't speed and neither should anyone else. But they do, some get lucky, some get dead.

And yeah it's better to speed on a video game to release these urges, and they aren't actually real people Eric, hence the fun and lack of guilt :) . Although GTA is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speeding is indeed stupid, but I think some of you need to take a look and evaluate your hardline stances.

Yes, I agree that speeding in a residential area is just plain idiotic, but on a freeway it is reckless driving that kills, not speeding. What lewis did was stupid, but nothing more, some of you need to stop overreacting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speeding is indeed stupid, but I think some of you need to take a look and evaluate your hardline stances.

Yes, I agree that speeding in a residential area is just plain idiotic, but on a freeway it is reckless driving that kills, not speeding. What lewis did was stupid, but nothing more, some of you need to stop overreacting

Speeding IS reckless, though. When you are going faster, you have less control. Even though Lewis can handle it, he drove beyond his car. For example: a couple cars check up for whatever reason in front of Lewis. Going 120, he can't slow down in time because the brakes just aren't capable enough, and BAM! he rear-ends someone who has a kid in the backseat and the kid dies. Lewis drives the speed limit, and is able to slow down to their speed in time and doesn't hit anyone. Speeding influences reckless driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

I used to work in insurance and sometimes the claims dept would sound round snippets of what people had written on claim forms that had made them laugh, or they would get them from other companies. Somebody wrote 'the car was more stationary than I thought' :eusa_think::D

There's a site somewhere with loads of those claim form statements. A few favourites:

"The pedestrian had no idea which way to run. So I ran over him"

"The accident was caused by me waving to the man I hit last week"

and my personal favourite:

"I had been driving for 40 years when I fell asleep at the wheel"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speeding IS reckless, though. When you are going faster, you have less control. Even though Lewis can handle it, he drove beyond his car. For example: a couple cars check up for whatever reason in front of Lewis. Going 120, he can't slow down in time because the brakes just aren't capable enough, and BAM! he rear-ends someone who has a kid in the backseat and the kid dies. Lewis drives the speed limit, and is able to slow down to their speed in time and doesn't hit anyone. Speeding influences reckless driving.

Ahhhh come on, Eric, we don't know anything about the situation - it could have been a deserted highway for all we know.

Just to be controversial, I have a theory that a reasonable driver when speeding will be much more alert to the dangers, precisely because they are speeding - the adrenalin is pumping, the senses are sharpened, it's almost like you are expecting something to happen. It's when people drive along not paying attention is when problems arise, or reckless driving.

And don't get me started on those people with kids and a sign in the back window saying 'Baby on board'. Yes, there is, usually in the bollocking driving seat, because what are they normally doing? Yep, tailgating :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speeding IS reckless, though. When you are going faster, you have less control.

No you have the same amount of control, just have to react quicker as the car travels further each second.

Even though Lewis can handle it, he drove beyond his car.

How do you know that?

How about my for example - Lewis finds an empty road and charges along it no traffic bothers him and he bothers nobody (apart from the police).

Speeding influences reckless driving.

Nonsense. Reckless driving influences speeding - subtle difference. Good drivers drive within the limits of their car and their ability. Bad drivers do not. Bad drivers can and often do cause accidents whilst travelling well under the speed limit. If what you say is true the Autobahns in Germany would be closed down from all the accidents caused by speeding drivers - but you know what? They have an accident rate the same as any other freeway/motorway, yet you can drive along them at whatever speed you want. The fact is that most accidents are caused by people not paying attention, driving badly or driving inappropriately for the conditions. This will happen regardless of the speed they drive.

I hate this creeping political correctness - the most absurd version of this is now we are being urged not to speed as it generates more CO2 - pur-lease!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate this creeping political correctness - the most absurd version of this is now we are being urged not to speed as it generates more CO2 - pur-lease!

Seems reasonable to me. You use about 3 times as much gas per unit distance travelling at 120 as you do at 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems reasonable to me. You use about 3 times as much gas per unit distance travelling at 120 as you do at 60.

Yes, of course you use more fuel, my comment was more that people are now trying to justify reducing speed for the sake of the planet.

Anyway don't get me started on human-induced global warming.... there's a lot of politics, spin, bad science and misinformation going on around that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, of course you use more fuel, my comment was more that people are now trying to justify reducing speed for the sake of the planet.

Anyway don't get me started on human-induced global warming.... there's a lot of politics, spin, bad science and misinformation going on around that.

True, but all scientific societies of all the major industrialised nations are in broad agreement nowadays, as are most other scientists. It's only a small group of crackpots hired by oil companies who still deny that greenhouse gases are heating us up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yeah it's better to speed on a video game to release these urges, and they aren't actually real people Eric, hence the fun and lack of guilt :) . Although GTA is better.

You played San Andreas with the hot coffee patch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but all scientific societies of all the major industrialised nations are in broad agreement nowadays, as are most other scientists. It's only a small group of crackpots hired by oil companies who still deny that greenhouse gases are heating us up.

Nope not true. This is what the governments would like us to believe as it gives them an excuse to slap on lots of extra taxes.

Yes CO2 does cause a warming effect but there is a lot of debate as to just how much of a warming effect it is having and what is causing the current levels of global warming that we are experiencing. Weather records are not accurate and do not go back far enough for us to make accurate long term predictions, we do not fully understand the way our climate model works (yet) and CO2 plays a role but then so do lots of other things. Its human arrogance to assume that we are responsible. Sure we make a contribution and can do our bit to help but mark my words in 20-30 years there could be a few red faces around when the truth is out.

There is not even consensus on precisely how much the earth has warmed.

Lots of scientists disagree and they are not just the ones paid by oil companies. However most of the ones that do disagree find they cannot get funding as global warming is the flavour of the month so you do not hear the counter-arguments.

What also most people do not realise was that there was a period of global cooling in the 70s and those old enough to remember will recall all the scare stories about an impending ice age!! (I kid you not!).

Its the usual bad science mixed with government spin and media hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope not true. This is what the governments would like us to believe as it gives them an excuse to slap on lots of extra taxes.

Yes CO2 does cause a warming effect but there is a lot of debate as to just how much of a warming effect it is having and what is causing the current levels of global warming that we are experiencing. Weather records are not accurate and do not go back far enough for us to make accurate long term predictions, we do not fully understand the way our climate model works (yet) and CO2 plays a role but then so do lots of other things. Its human arrogance to assume that we are responsible. Sure we make a contribution and can do our bit to help but mark my words in 20-30 years there could be a few red faces around when the truth is out.

There is not even consensus on precisely how much the earth has warmed.

Lots of scientists disagree and they are not just the ones paid by oil companies. However most of the ones that do disagree find they cannot get funding as global warming is the flavour of the month so you do not hear the counter-arguments.

What also most people do not realise was that there was a period of global cooling in the 70s and those old enough to remember will recall all the scare stories about an impending ice age!! (I kid you not!).

Its the usual bad science mixed with government spin and media hype.

Trust me, I've done a LOT of research on this. Read the IPCC fourth assessment report in full, and then tell me if you still believe we need do nothing about global warming. There are plenty of areas where the report expresses doubts about certain human effects on the climate, such as whether extreme weather phenomena such as hurricanes are a result. But there is an overwhelming likelihood that we are having a significant effect on the earth's climate and that it will have catastrophic consequences in the long run.

And it's correct to say there's a lot of politics are involved, and that many skeptical scientists struggle to obtain funding. It's also true that equally many, if not more (especially in America) have the same trouble obtaining money to support the case for doing something about climate change.

Sorry to drag this topic onto an F1 forum but I simply can't let it slide. I have no patience with people who continue to deny overwhelming evidence for the sake of their own convenience, even when almost all of the skeptical scientists with any academic credibility have within the last 18 months reversed their opinions.

Oh and incidentally the seventies ice age was just a tabloid scare story. No significant or credible scientific support has ever been garnered for it, and it is thus utterly irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trust me, I've done a LOT of research on this. Read the IPCC fourth assessment report in full, and then tell me if you still believe we need do nothing about global warming.

Trust me I have also done a LOT of research too and if you base your opinions on the IPCC's output then you are missing a big chunk of the argument.

I am not denying CO2 and humans have an impact - its the scale and speed of the change which I (and many others) are questioning. And there are lots of inconsistencies which the politicians and pro-CO2 scientists are ignoring:

- Scientists cannot even agree, for example how much the earth has warmed.

- When you compare satellite data to earth station data you get different warming results (satellites show less warming).

- If the CO2 induced global warming followed the classic greenhouse effect model, the Troposphere (upper atmosphere) should heat up first with the effects at ground level only being noticeable once the upper atmosphere had heated. Yet this has not been observed

- CO2 levels and global temperatures are linked, however there is a 600 year time-lag between temperature rises and increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. i.e. the temperature goes up first before the CO2 levels increase - this is the wrong way around for CO2-induced warming (and is caused by the release of CO2 from the oceans as water holds less CO2 when it heats)

- CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and methane/water vapour have a considerably greater effect on our atmosphere. The increases in CO2 are relatively small on a global scale in terms of percentage in our atmosphere and there is some debate about how such an apparent/alleged large increase in temperate can be caused by such a small change in CO2 (which does not tie into the existing model)

The other key thing is that our climate is a very complex machine which is affected by so many variables and there is insufficient tangible scientific evidence on which to base any accurate theories. Global warming is also affected by changes in solar outputs, outputs of methane from animal, turbulence in global upper winds, volcanic activity, cyclical variations in the earth's orbit, amount of cloud cover and changes in El Nino and the jetstream.

We just don't understand enough about it to draw firm conclusions.

And it's correct to say there's a lot of politics are involved, and that many skeptical scientists struggle to obtain funding. It's also true that equally many, if not more (especially in America) have the same trouble obtaining money to support the case for doing something about climate change.

That's the issue for me, climate change is now a multi-billion dollar industry and there is a lot of resistance to changing this. Understandably.

Sorry to drag this topic onto an F1 forum but I simply can't let it slide. I have no patience with people who continue to deny overwhelming evidence for the sake of their own convenience, even when almost all of the skeptical scientists with any academic credibility have within the last 18 months reversed their opinions.

The evidence is only overwhelming if you read one side of the story and believe the tabloid hype who blame everything on global warming - e.g. there is no statistical evidence to prove that we are having worse weather now than previously. Yet the media blame any hurricanes, storms, floods, tornados on global warming.

And no there are plenty of other scientists who do disagree, only they are getting bludgeoned into following the same path as everyone else or are too afraid to speak out for fear of losing funding/their jobs. I know this as I have a climatologist friend.

Oh and incidentally the seventies ice age was just a tabloid scare story. No significant or credible scientific support has ever been garnered for it, and it is thus utterly irrelevant.

Actually there was a 30 year cooling period around the 70s and this is not in scientific dispute (although the experts again cannot agree why this happened with some blaming changes in solar output and others blaming aerosol sulphites).

Agreed the ice age was a bit of tabloid hype and is now not taken seriously, however it is interesting to see irony of this. 30 years ago - lots of scare stories and media hype and oh look it was all a load of nonsense. Hmmmmm!!!!!

As I said, it is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are producing lots of it, BUT are we totally to blame? I would say the jury is out on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about this, but hey- it is the off season!

Trust me I have also done a LOT of research too and if you base your opinions on the IPCC's output then you are missing a big chunk of the argument.

I don't- I read every source I can lay my hands on. The IPCC reports are merely a good starting point- you have to read the studies on which they are based. You I suspect (based on the fact you produce its arguments verbatim below), watched Channel 4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and based all your arguments on that. And most of them are either total fallacies or have been debunked (in some cases many years before the program was produced).

- Scientists cannot even agree, for example how much the earth has warmed.

We know temperatures have increased gradually during the twentieth century based on accurate records, and that there has been a sharp rise since around 1970, commensurate with the increase in human activity during that time. This in itself does not prove the two are linked, but it proves without a doubt that the earth is warming up significantly.

- When you compare satellite data to earth station data you get different warming results (satellites show less warming).

- If the CO2 induced global warming followed the classic greenhouse effect model, the Troposphere (upper atmosphere) should heat up first with the effects at ground level only being noticeable once the upper atmosphere had heated. Yet this has not been observed

No it shouldn't. Trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is 1.6 times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse rate (Fu et al, 2003). The debunking of this theory has been one of the major factors in convincing many skeptical scientists to change their minds.

- CO2 levels and global temperatures are linked, however there is a 600 year time-lag between temperature rises and increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. i.e. the temperature goes up first before the CO2 levels increase - this is the wrong way around for CO2-induced warming (and is caused by the release of CO2 from the oceans as water holds less CO2 when it heats)

Things aren't as simple as that, but it can be a bit of a bitch to explain why in a few words. Read this article (and if you have time the studies it cites) for an explanation:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-temp-and-co2/

- CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and methane/water vapour have a considerably greater effect on our atmosphere. The increases in CO2 are relatively small on a global scale in terms of percentage in our atmosphere and there is some debate about how such an apparent/alleged large increase in temperate can be caused by such a small change in CO2 (which does not tie into the existing model)

The Earth is a highly complex set of feedback mechanisms. Saying that the increase is too small to have an effect is entirely baseless. We do know for sure that the levels of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere were around 280ppm (+/- 10 ppm) during the several thousand years preceding the Industrial Revolution. Now they are around 370ppm. I'd say that's a significant increase.

And what existing model does it not tie into?

The other key thing is that our climate is a very complex machine which is affected by so many variables and there is insufficient tangible scientific evidence on which to base any accurate theories. Global warming is also affected by changes in solar outputs, outputs of methane from animal, turbulence in global upper winds, volcanic activity, cyclical variations in the earth's orbit, amount of cloud cover and changes in El Nino and the jetstream.

We just don't understand enough about it to draw firm conclusions.

All the evidence we have points to mankind warming up the Earth. Now I agree that you can never be certain about anything, but the evidence says that the recent upward trend is a result of human activities, with a greater than 90% certainty. This emotional claim that "we can't possibly have such a big effect on the earth" is total crap, as proven by the ozone hole and its proven link with CFC emissions.

That's the issue for me, climate change is now a multi-billion dollar industry and there is a lot of resistance to changing this. Understandably.

There's a lot more money to be made by denying global warming than accepting it, believe me.

The evidence is only overwhelming if you read one side of the story and believe the tabloid hype who blame everything on global warming - e.g. there is no statistical evidence to prove that we are having worse weather now than previously. Yet the media blame any hurricanes, storms, floods, tornados on global warming.

The evidence is overwhelming if you read everything, rather than just the arguments you want to hear. Tabloid hysteria does not prove anything, one way or the other. There is significant doubt about extreme weather being a result of human activity- there is far, far less doubt about global warming.

And no there are plenty of other scientists who do disagree, only they are getting bludgeoned into following the same path as everyone else or are too afraid to speak out for fear of losing funding/their jobs. I know this as I have a climatologist friend.

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy. Like how MMR/autism was a big conspiracy- the whole scientific community working against one brave scientist who stood up against the evil establishment. Do me a favour- it's in no government's interest to do anything about global warming- the costs will be high and the measures which need to be taken massively unpopular.

Actually there was a 30 year cooling period around the 70s and this is not in scientific dispute (although the experts again cannot agree why this happened with some blaming changes in solar output and others blaming aerosol sulphites).

Agreed the ice age was a bit of tabloid hype and is now not taken seriously, however it is interesting to see irony of this. 30 years ago - lots of scare stories and media hype and oh look it was all a load of nonsense. Hmmmmm!!!!!

Yes, there was a slight cooling period in the 40s and 50s (not the 70s), generally attributed to sulphate emissions. There was never any suggestion that a new ice age was beginning in any reputable scientific source I can find. You have to learn to seperate media hype from good science. Sometimes media hype is not based on good science, but sometimes it is. Even The Sun gets it right sometimes :)

As I said, it is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are producing lots of it, BUT are we totally to blame? I would say the jury is out on that one.

And you'd be wrong. For every scientist who denies man's effect on the Earth's temperature I can find you 10 who don't. Even more if you exclude those who got their degrees on the Internet :P .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You played San Andreas with the hot coffee patch?

Haha no but I've heard about it, you dirty dog you! :P

As for global warming, well, let's wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haha no but I've heard about it, you dirty dog you! :P

As for global warming, well, let's wait and see.

OK now I'm intrigued.....what does the hot coffee patch do? I only played GTA SA on PS2 so I couldn't do anything interesting things with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK now I'm intrigued.....what does the hot coffee patch do? I only played GTA SA on PS2 so I couldn't do anything interesting things with it.

http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&...=gta+hot+coffee+

anyway,it's good that you played without the hot coffee thing. iirc , it screws up your saved games or some s##t like that.

i didn't complete 100% . i'm not that a hardcore gamer. i was satisfied with the main storyline which itself took a long time.

you gunning for gta 4? for a change , decent graphics from rockstar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&...=gta+hot+coffee+

you gunning for gta 4? for a change , decent graphics from rockstar.

I'm not sure really. I have to say I was disappointed with San Andreas when compared to Vice City. I just got bored with the characters, and for me that makes quite a bit of difference in that sort of game. I loved the enormous map, but the "Gangsta" storyline was incredibly boring. Next time I hope they'll come up with something better.

Of course I'm nitpicking- they're all fantastic games. I am hoping there'll be a Wii version though- unfortunately my PC is purely dedicated to music production and I just can't justify another one for games.

Mind you it would be nice to finally complete Half Life 2. I remember about 2 years ago I bought a PC just to play it. After 6 months I opened the case to find the graphics card had melted.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure really. I have to say I was disappointed with San Andreas when compared to Vice City. I just got bored with the characters, and for me that makes quite a bit of difference in that sort of game. I loved the enormous map, but the "Gangsta" storyline was incredibly boring. Next time I hope they'll come up with something better.

Of course I'm nitpicking- they're all fantastic games. I am hoping there'll be a Wii version though- unfortunately my PC is purely dedicated to music production and I just can't justify another one for games.

Mind you it would be nice to finally complete Half Life 2. I remember about 2 years ago I bought a PC just to play it. After 6 months I opened the case to find the graphics card had melted.......

Well, GTA 4 has some Slavic dude in the hot seat.

A shame that your graphics card gave up on you. HL2 is fantastic. Perhaps you should check out Orange Box. A steal if there was one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...