Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,143
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Because they were not in formation supercruising down the motorway maybe, for one car to catch another you need a speed difference.
Goalie charged
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
Because they were not in formation supercruising down the motorway maybe, for one car to catch another you need a speed difference.
Pretty much sums it up.
I agree that there are other variables but driving under the influence (however minor) means he certainly was in no position to react to an emergency to the best of his ability.
Of course it is but it still does not deflect from the point that this guy apparently jumped into his 2 tonne 4x4 and set off along the motorway.
gt
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,143
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
So is abiding by the laws of the land.
Although I dont know what Im more shocked at, the DD or the fact people own RR sports without insurance.
No, neither the Sun nor BB hold much appeal for me 
Because they were not in formation supercruising down the motorway maybe, for one car to catch another you need a speed difference.
Of course - there's no need to be pedantic and state the obvious
I was responding to the suggestion that the RR must have been going significantly faster than the other car. That is not necessarily so at all. Indeed although it may have needed to be going faster to catch it, at the moment of impact the speeds could have been similar or even the same.Yes, laws of the land which all of us in this thread break probably daily when we drive.
Completely agree
My point earlier was he may of thought he was under the drink drive limit, therefore LEGALLY allowed to drive. Whether he was fit to drive is another matter. E.g. Some of his mates bought him a couple of drinks, he asked for a Red Bull, but his mates got him a vodka and Red Bull. You can't tell the difference between the two.I'm suprised no-one has mentioned the time the accident happened. 5:45AM, he could have been incredibly tired and therefore his reactions no where near what they should have been, coupled with alcohol intake.
A recipe for distaster.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,143
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
People are considering the lack of insurance as irrelevant, but if hes not responsible enough to insure a motor vehicle then its less likely he would have sensible ideas like that. So i think its going to be a contributory factor if/when this one goes to a court to bumping any sentence up.
well thats my opinion as well...he obviously doesnt care about other road users
even if he had just clipped them and there had been no fatalaties..they would still be screwed as they had been hit by an uninsured driver. it all builds up to show his attitude as far as I am concerned
Doesnt uninsured drunk driving always go down like this....
1) Had a few beers and got drunk
2) Doesnt care about insurance because early in the morning (minimal traffic and police) and assumes he wont crash (increased self confidence)
Dogbreath said:
I was using the lowest form of wit in the above quote, rather than being serious...
The reason I ask about the insurance is, obviously the individual in question can well afford to insure himself, and it seems doubtful that anyone, even a well paid footballer, would drive a £60k car with no insurance, knowingly *shrug*
I mean he doubtless earns good money, but he isn't earning £100k a week like top premiership players, so £60k would not be an inconsiderable sum even to him, surely.
did anyone see 5 news? They had lots of footage on the two vehicles in a warehouse
The Toyota Previa was a wreck the entire of the rear was folded in by over a foot and was clearly a clean rear hit with the front of the Range rover was smashed (slightly more on the drivers side) with the front screen smashed and bags deployed.
The front of the Previa was destroyed with half the roof ripped off.
Skid marks on the road show the Previa went straight (no spinning) from the middle lane across the inside lane and down an embankment into the trees (destroying front and roof).
From all that it really looks like the drunk idiot slammed into them from behind and there didn't look like a slip road for them to have come off of either
The Toyota Previa was a wreck the entire of the rear was folded in by over a foot and was clearly a clean rear hit with the front of the Range rover was smashed (slightly more on the drivers side) with the front screen smashed and bags deployed.
The front of the Previa was destroyed with half the roof ripped off.
Skid marks on the road show the Previa went straight (no spinning) from the middle lane across the inside lane and down an embankment into the trees (destroying front and roof).
From all that it really looks like the drunk idiot slammed into them from behind and there didn't look like a slip road for them to have come off of either
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,747
- Location
- The Planet Houston
OcUK RTA Investigation Team Investigates!