End of Modding?
Originally Posted by Moggy,Mar 26 2008, 01:12 PM
So are they simply working out the one in 200 by approximately doing 3172 x 80 (life expectancy) / 58m (population) ? 
What a
measure.

What a
measure.Lets put the figures this way.
lets say 1% of the population die a year, that's 580,000 people.
3172 die on the roads
that's 0.005% of the population die on the roads.
1 in 200 would imply .5%
Originally Posted by Dracoro,Mar 26 2008, 02:17 PM
1 in 200 would imply .5%
If you live for 80 years, and use your car twice a day (to get there and get back), then the actual risk is 1 in 200 x 80 x 365 x 2 = 1 in 11,680,000.
I think I can live with that risk given all the freedom and increase in quality of life having a car gives you.
Exactly.
It's why I keep having Dr. Phibes-type fantasies about murdering hacks & politicos; their ill-educated scaremongering should be turned against them.
If they took the stats at more than face value, they'd have a GATSO in every kitchen! That'd save lives.
It's why I keep having Dr. Phibes-type fantasies about murdering hacks & politicos; their ill-educated scaremongering should be turned against them.
If they took the stats at more than face value, they'd have a GATSO in every kitchen! That'd save lives.
Originally Posted by Dembo,Mar 26 2008, 02:47 PM
It's a clever manipulation of statstics; it makes it sound like you have a 1 in 200 chance of death everytime you get into your car.
If you live for 80 years, and use your car twice a day (to get there and get back), then the actual risk is 1 in 200 x 80 x 365 x 2 = 1 in 11,680,000.
I think I can live with that risk given all the freedom and increase in quality of life having a car gives you.
If you live for 80 years, and use your car twice a day (to get there and get back), then the actual risk is 1 in 200 x 80 x 365 x 2 = 1 in 11,680,000.
I think I can live with that risk given all the freedom and increase in quality of life having a car gives you.
Originally Posted by Heinz '57,Mar 26 2008, 04:09 PM
I really dont think that you would, particularly if you burnt to death.if you are going to go.. by having an accidental death.. better it was something you were enjoying (upto that point).. rather than something really pointless..
I remember the boo radleys posed outside the houses of parliament with t-shirts saying "I've got an orange, tennis racket and a plastic bag. I'm ready to go." or somesuch 
Oh, and it was only a semi figure of speech. I really would rather burn to death crashing trying to overtake hamilton than die falling off my roof trying to get a picture to watch the FA cup final.
However I would rather die of a heart attack, white powder around my nose, naked in a room with 5 high class escorts.
The point is, legislation shouldn't protect enabled individuals from themselves. It should protect people from other people's idiocy if it's appropriate, but if I want to die in a hotel w@nking whilst choking myself like a certain michael hutchence allegedly did, then that's my right.

Oh, and it was only a semi figure of speech. I really would rather burn to death crashing trying to overtake hamilton than die falling off my roof trying to get a picture to watch the FA cup final.
However I would rather die of a heart attack, white powder around my nose, naked in a room with 5 high class escorts.
The point is, legislation shouldn't protect enabled individuals from themselves. It should protect people from other people's idiocy if it's appropriate, but if I want to die in a hotel w@nking whilst choking myself like a certain michael hutchence allegedly did, then that's my right.
Originally Posted by chilled,Mar 26 2008, 05:04 PM
However I would rather die of a heart attack, white powder around my nose, naked in a room with 5 high class escorts.



