Comments on: On shooting unarmed students

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:11:00 +0000

Still not sure that the fact that more people die in car accidents than train accidents (as a pure numbers game) excuses train companies making their trains as safe as possible, particularly if they hope to persuade more people onto them.

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:08:00 +0000

Ah, I knew there was a sensible reason….! ;)

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:11:00 +0000

Cars are smaller and lighter, therefore more likely than trains to be picked up by tornados and dropped on top of you.

By: john b

john b — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:37:00 +0000

Pedant. You know perfectly well what I mean.

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:02:00 +0000

"things that were dangerous to start with (eg cars)"

In what way is a car (if taken as an inanimate object empty of driver) inherently more dangerous than a train (if taqken as an inanimate object empty of driver)?

By: Squander Two

Squander Two — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:39:00 +0000

A million spent on roads saves about ten times as many lives as a million spent on railways, doesn’t it? Or is it even more? I forget.

By: john b

john b — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:10:00 +0000

For as long as railways are at least an order of magnitude safer than cars (which those in the UK are), of course they shouldn't.

The extra £N billion to add extra safety kit has to come from somewhere, and it would save more lives if it were spent on either improving the safety of things that were dangerous to start with (eg cars), on cutting rail fares to encourage people to switch to safer modes of transport, etc.

I agree the anti-Caterpillar thing isn't sensible, but it's something that has become the fashion among bereaved relatives - hence not top-range moonbattery (merely regrettable).

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:45:00 +0000

And "train crash survivors trying to make the government waste huge amounts of money on pointless safety kit"…??!!

Where did this come from? Are you seriously suggesting that train companies (whose lax safety & repair work has led to a crash) SHOULDN’T be forced to install safety kit to prevent a recurrence?

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:12:00 +0000

"Corrie's mum wants to hurt the company who sold the machine that killed her daughter"

And that doesn't sound like 'top-level political moonbattery'..? That a company should be held responsible for what their machine (which has many legitimate uses) is used for?

Right, off to mow down some pedestrians! Chrysler can pay their families compensation....

By: Eamonn

Eamonn — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:48:00 +0000

Will the Palestinian police do anything about this for instance?

http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/IsraelUnderAttack/Beit+Hagai/victim2+2606.htm