HeadingNorth Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 NO ONE MENTIONS DEISEL. The only reason you invented it ... He didn't invent it. He is not claiming that it was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 He didn't invent it. He is not claiming that it was there. So what is he trying to prove then? I particularly liked this report. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8936362/Drivers-of-supercars-in-Japan-crash-were-speeding.html Drivers of supercars in Japan crash 'were speeding' Japanese police are blaming the destruction of eight Ferraris and a Lamborghini in a £2.6 million, 14-car crash on Sunday on excessive speed. By Julian Ryall in Tokyo 4:42PM GMT 05 Dec 2011 A witness told Japanese television that he saw the parade of supercars travelling at speeds of up to 100mph, which was double the speed limit on the Chugoku Expressway, in southern Japan, due to heavy rain that had made the surface slick. “A group of cars was doing 140kph (87mph) to 160kph,” the unnamed man told TBS News. “One of them span and they all ended up in this huge mess.” Another motorist described how he narrowly avoided becoming caught in what is likely to be the most expensive car crash outside of a car racing track. “The front car crashed into the left embankment and bounced off towards me,” he said. You might also like this which is the statement from the guy who hit the barriers “I was driving at a faster speed than the legal limit. I had attempted to change lanes while driving in the passing lane, but the rear wheels of my car skidded, prompting my car to hit the guardrail”, said the 60 year old Ferrari driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So what is he trying to prove then? Only that people in this thread jumped to conclusions without having the evidence available to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Only that people in this thread jumped to conclusions without having the evidence available to them. The evidence of eye witnesses and the police investigators and the admision from the driver who caused it you mean? “I was driving at a faster speed than the legal limit. I had attempted to change lanes while driving in the passing lane, but the rear wheels of my car skidded, prompting my car to hit the guardrail”, said the 60 year old Ferrari driver. A witness told Japanese television that he saw the parade of supercars travelling at speeds of up to 100mph, which was double the speed limit on the Chugoku Expressway, in southern Japan, due to heavy rain that had made the surface slick. Japanese police are blaming the destruction of eight Ferraris and a Lamborghini in a £2.6 million, 14-car crash on Sunday on excessive speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The evidence of eye witnesses and the police investigators and the admision from the driver who caused it you mean?. When this thread was first opened and people started giving their own opinions as to the cause, none of that evidence was yet available - as Cyclone has been trying for some days to point out. That we now have evidence available, does not mean that those opinions were justified at the time they were made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 So remove 1 lane from my explanation. The skid didn't need to be invented, that would be the diesel that may or may not have been there. The skid caused by the diesel would explain the bouncing off the central reservation and back into the car he'd been about to pass. So when do you think someone will spot this deisel spill then? Its been a couple of weeks since the crash. Surely if no one has spotted it yet or the drivers involved put it forward as an excuse then it's rather too late isn't it. I know that I'm only a woman, but I think that someone would have spotted it by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 So when do you think someone will spot this deisel spill then? Since it was only ever a hypothetical one, posited to prove that you - as of eight days ago - didn't have the faintest clue what the cause of the accident was, why would you be expecting anyone to spot it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 When this thread was first opened and people started giving their own opinions as to the cause, none of that evidence was yet available - as Cyclone has been trying for some days to point out. That we now have evidence available, does not mean that those opinions were justified at the time they were made. Oh I see Mr Cyclone has an appologist. If you bothered to read the thread your mate Cyclone only invented his deisel theory a couple of days ago AFTER all the evidence hadbeen reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Oh I see Mr Cyclone has an appologist. If you bothered to read the thread your mate Cyclone only invented his deisel theory a couple of days ago AFTER all the evidence hadbeen reported. Whereas you claimed to know what the cause was, several days beforehand. As Cyclone pointed out earlier and I'm still pointing out now ... you were wrong. You did not know the cause. Whether or not your guess has turned out to be right does not make it anything more than a guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Whereas you claimed to know what the cause was, several days beforehand. As Cyclone pointed out earlier and I'm still pointing out now ... you were wrong. You did not know the cause. Whether or not your guess has turned out to be right does not make it anything more than a guess! Reasonable assumptions based on the facts of the accident would be a better explanation than she guessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.