http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.a...ntid=150868863
Printable View
so because they're young they must have been boy racers? fanny. i was in a car crash with a middle aged man due to the fact he decided it wasnt even worth his while checking his mirrors before pulling out right infront of me. guess that was my fault though seeing as i was 18 at the time eh?
I think the people who know better than anyone which groups are more likely to crash are the insurers. Whichever age group has the highest premium is the one that has had most accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by calumhibee1
I'm sure the lads were on their way to work at the back of three in the morning, when this accident occurred (well other than the 15 year old). Unless of course, the tree forgot to check its mirrors.
Would you like salt and vinegar with that chip on your shoulder?
Thread title is a bit harsh, no?
I'll confidently predict that you would never have used that title in a million years if they had been from Edinburgh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaods
The insurers didnt write the newspaper article did they ..?...i cant see anywhere in that article that suggests it was "boy racers" therefore i think the OP & yourself have jumped to conclusions..rather unusual for hibs.net of course..:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Whatever the circumstances ..very tragic that young lives have been lost ..
Where would we be without people jumping to conclusions. That's right FRANCE!Quote:
Originally Posted by happyhibbie
It is a well established fact that the group that has the highest accident rate is young men. To suggest otherwise is just wrong.
That, of course, doesn't mean that the lad was doing anything wrong in this case, police investigations will have to be done etc. Personally, I think - on no scientific basis whatsoever - there is a good chance that the driver was a young lad trying to impress his mates.
That said, my heart goes out to the laddies' loved ones. Boys will be boys, and unfortunately tragedies happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Another link - Beeb's report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...ds/8360183.stm
Note: the police felt it necessary to mention that the car wasn't "believed to be" stolen.
Just one thought - just what speed was the car travelling? I've known a number of serious accidents on the A9 over the years, including a few where the driver drove straight into a wall, but I can't recall one where ALL the occupants of the car were killed. There were always survivors.
One might ask also whether seat-belts were being worn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
:agree:
yes, it was meant to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number_10
I confidently predict the world will end in 2012. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by calumhibee1
:rolleyes:
Am I missing something or is this one of the most distasteful threads there has ever been on here?
No ..there has been a lot worse ..Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
4 lads with the oldest being 17 in a Rover and 'signifcant impact' with a wall at 03.45.
it's not really rocket science to work it out is it?
Heartless, tactless, classless. :bitchy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaods
What scoreline would you put on the story below or is it not worthy of a poor attempt at comedy as it appears to involve an older victim?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/d...re/8361083.stm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
There is no comparison required, entirely different set of cirumstances.
poor effort to make a valid contribution on your part though IMHO.
That's exactly the point. Would you have used such a disrespectful and deliberately inflammatory title to a thread about the story I posted the link to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaods
If not, why do you think it's acceptable to do it for the one you linked to?
I'm afraid if you can't work out the answer to your own question from what's already been posted then we've reached the point of impasse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I'm going to assume that as the oldest lad was 17, he was the driver. So this would mean that he would have had no more than 9 months experience of driving since he passed his test. Sorry, I'll rephrase that, 9 months of legal experience of driving.
On another note, I would have had my erse tanned for being out at that time at that age. Changed days I suppose.
Even accepting your incredibly unpleasant supposition that they were drunk and/or driving incredibly dangerously, I'm still failing to see how this is something to be celebrated in the manner (well, in any manner) you have in the title of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaods
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
supposition they were drunk.
Celebrated ???
Wow...where did you read that?
You are confusing your slant on it with what was posted.
:hmmm:
£10 bet for Dnipro Kids says I'm right here.:on toast!
I'm not sure what you're betting on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaods
The end of the world in 2012? :confused:
Or something else? :confused:
Maybe a post to confirm would be best. :greengrin
:top marksto show I'm not a smart-ass I'll have a fiver on both. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
I guess so. I was just trying to work out why, by the content and tone of your posts, you seemed to be taking some sort of morbid satisfaction from the deaths of 4 young men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toaods
No matter the circumstance, four lives have been lost needlessly (including three whose hands weren't on the wheel) and four families are in mourning today.
I can only assume that you have a personal take on this type of event or subject matter beyond what you've chosen to share on here and have chosen to post in poor taste without regard for people who may have have different experiences of this type of accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
'seems' you do too much assuming.
make that 3 families...:wink:
A trivial point in the grand scheme of things but they only give ages for 3 of the 4 people involved. The use of the phrase '4 people, including 3 teenagers' would lead me to believe the fourth was 20+. :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
they cannot release such details until all have been formally identified, although they have been now:
http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/l...al.asp?id=3321
Guess you were led to believe wrong then. Oldest person was 17. And it's not a trivial point to make. I personally believe that there should be restrictions on young drivers in the form of size of car they can drive, how many people they can have in the car, time they can drive etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
Indeed I was. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
To an extent there are restrictions on the size of car young drivers can drive. Someone my age would struggle to get insurance for a car above 1.9L and even then it would be very expensive.
The problem with the rest of the restrictions is knowing where to draw the line. :dunno:
I agree, you need to do different motorcycle tests as you go up the sizes. The driving test is totally unsuitable, given that someone can drive a Ferrari the day they pass their test.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArabHibee
You my Dad? That's exactly what he says! :cool2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
But if Mummy and Daddy have lots and lots of money, it will never be a problem regarding the insurance. So there is then a divide against classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
It should be a limit to the size of engine. 1 litre for the first 2 years after passing your test, then gradually going up for the next 3 years.
IMO of course.