A 'proper job' apparently

[TITWONK]

you bloody idiots. we have a thread 60 pages long of all you lot smashing great cars, this lad crashes his clio and he should have his hands chopped off? and is a bell end? this site is funny at times although a little embarrassing.

[.R2D2]

What's more funny is people say its a powerful car and a great car

[Tuvra]

TITWONK said:

you bloody idiots. we have a thread 60 pages long of all you lot smashing great cars, this lad crashes his clio and he should have his hands chopped off? and is a bell end? this site is funny at times although a little embarrassing.

110mph - Country lane

[superman84]

.R2D2 said:

What's more funny is people say its a powerful car and a great car

[.R2D2]

RobFerrari said:

MSTRBKR said:

Waste of a great car, that's made me quite angry.

Edited by MSTRBKR on Monday 20th December 20:48

Agreed. I really like Clio Trophy's, and generally the Renault Sport editions of that Clio. Shame that idiots like him get the chance to own and drive one like complete fools.

Edited by RobFerrari on Tuesday 21st December 19:02

Oh right, so they owe it to people like you to look after them

[John D.]

.R2D2 said:

What's more funny is people say its a powerful car and a great car

In comparison to the mighty Vectra SRi? Phwoar!

[TonyHetherington]

There's an awful lot of hypocrisy here, I fear.

I'm 30 now, and my age has made me see sense. But at 19yrs old I had an Escort Cosworth (bought by my own hard saved cash, working two jobs and not going out for a year for it ). Never crashed it, but I did some things I'm not proud of in it (a couple of times). Those things could have ended very very badly.

It was stupid, and I was lucky to get away with it. I can guarantee that every person on this thread, if they are of PH blood, has done a similarly stupid thing at some point in a car, it's just that this guy's happened to result in a crash.

[anonymous-user]

Not sure why everybody is picking on this tit in particular when there's a 50-odd page thread of PH'ers mostly doing the same thing...

[John D.]

TonyHetherington said:

There's an awful lot of hypocrisy here, I fear.

I'm 30 now, and my age has made me see sense. But at 19yrs old I had an Escort Cosworth (bought by my own hard saved cash, working two jobs and not going out for a year for it ). Never crashed it, but I did some things I'm not proud of in it (a couple of times). Those things could have ended very very badly.

It was stupid, and I was lucky to get away with it. I can guarantee that every person on this thread, if they are of PH blood, has done a similarly stupid thing at some point in a car, it's just that this guy's happened to result in a crash.

Bang on.

[insanojackson]

J4CKO said:

None of their business if you don't claim and nobody claims against you, they are only interested in making money, who in their right mind is going to say, well I had a massive accident and wrecked the car, I paid for a new one myself, now please charge me a higher premium for the accident you didn't pay for.

Still, he shouldnt have one, let alone a second one, 110 mph with zero experience, cretin.

i think it is, the fact you have been involved in an accident with or without a claim is a good indicator of risk. Especially if its an accident like this one caused by being an utter cock.

[EDLT]

TonyHetherington said:

There's an awful lot of hypocrisy here, I fear.

I'm 30 now, and my age has made me see sense. But at 19yrs old I had an Escort Cosworth (bought by my own hard saved cash, working two jobs and not going out for a year for it ). Never crashed it, but I did some things I'm not proud of in it (a couple of times). Those things could have ended very very badly.

It was stupid, and I was lucky to get away with it. I can guarantee that every person on this thread, if they are of PH blood, has done a similarly stupid thing at some point in a car, it's just that this guy's happened to result in a crash.

Well said.

I wonder if he learnt his lesson. Even if the car(s) were bought by his parents they MUST have said something, surely?

[madala]

...thank krist the little pratt didn't kill anyone.....GRRrrrrrrrr

[Chris_w666]

The guy crashed due to being a bit thick and over estimating his own ability, he was in his own car, nobody was killed or seriously hurt, the insurance company will not lose out, and if the driver of the clio has any sense he will learn from the experience.

People always seem to have lots of jealousy when someone has a better car than they do at a young age, or crash a car that would be their P&J, in reality it is only a car and it was his car to do with as he wished. Stop being so petty he is alive, and so is his passenger.

[anonymous-user]

John D. said:

TonyHetherington said:

There's an awful lot of hypocrisy here, I fear.

I'm 30 now, and my age has made me see sense. But at 19yrs old I had an Escort Cosworth (bought by my own hard saved cash, working two jobs and not going out for a year for it ). Never crashed it, but I did some things I'm not proud of in it (a couple of times). Those things could have ended very very badly.

It was stupid, and I was lucky to get away with it. I can guarantee that every person on this thread, if they are of PH blood, has done a similarly stupid thing at some point in a car, it's just that this guy's happened to result in a crash.

Bang on.

+1 I can't help but feel that if this had been a thread about a chap with a McLaren F1 who's name started with F, there would be talk of, driving it like it was meant to be driven and lots of simpering and ass licking

A 19 year old is an easy target, no doubt half of PH have a mental image of a burberry wearing chav, who was doing 110 whilst injecting smack and kicking a puppy

[r11co]

J4CKO said:

None of their business if you don't claim and nobody claims against you, they are only interested in making money, who in their right mind is going to say, well I had a massive accident and wrecked the car, I paid for a new one myself, now please charge me a higher premium for the accident you didn't pay for.

I can see the point of material facts being considered when assessing risk, but I am inclined to agree with the above. I was recently spun some bullcrap from an insurer when I called to pay my renewal and was then informed about a large premium hike (much higher than the renewal notice amount which I was actually happy to go with as it was the cheapest for the cover I was looking for) following an incident where a double-glazing company van reversed out of a driveway across the road from me and straight into my Jag. The company accepted liability and their insurer handled everything, and I specifically asked my insurer's claims handlers not to get involved in any way as to run up any expenditure whatsoever.

I was informed that the recent accident meant statistically that I was a higher risk. I told them straight that what they were saying was bks (stating also that I hoped this call was being 'recorded for training purposes') because if they actually bothered their arse to look at the circumstances of the accident (which I had detailed to them 'for information purposes only') then they would see that the likelihood of the same or a similar accident happening again was significantly less likely as the neighbour across the road would be very unlikely to be getting their double glazing replaced by the same company so soon.

I then added that if they didn't drop the premium back to the renewal level then they would be getting sweet FA from me as I'd be going with the second cheapest quote I had which was only a few quid more.

A short silence was followed with a 'we can do that for you sir....'

[Gandi69]

What a waste of a limited edition motor but then again you arent going to able to stop young lads wanting to drive hot hatches fast and talent doesnt increase with your wallet size!
Trophys are voted in the top 10 best handling cars ever in Evo mag as everyones aware so he must have done something pretty mental to get it in that state

[5lab]

r11co said:

J4CKO said:

None of their business if you don't claim and nobody claims against you, they are only interested in making money, who in their right mind is going to say, well I had a massive accident and wrecked the car, I paid for a new one myself, now please charge me a higher premium for the accident you didn't pay for.

I can see the point of material facts being considered when assessing risk, but I am inclined to agree with the above. I was recently spun some bullcrap from an insurer when I called to pay my renewal and was then informed about a large premium hike (much higher than the renewal notice amount which I was actually happy to go with as it was the cheapest for the cover I was looking for) following an incident where a double-glazing company van reversed out of a driveway across the road from me and straight into my Jag. The company accepted liability and their insurer handled everything, and I specifically asked my insurer's claims handlers not to get involved in any way as to run up any expenditure whatsoever.

I was informed that the recent accident meant statistically that I was a higher risk. I told them straight that what they were saying was bks (stating also that I hoped this call was being 'recorded for training purposes') because if they actually bothered their arse to look at the circumstances of the accident (which I had detailed to them 'for information purposes only') then they would see that the likelihood of the same or a similar accident happening again was significantly less likely as the neighbour across the road would be very unlikely to be getting their double glazing replaced by the same company so soon.

its not bullcrap though. Your jag is parked somewhere (regularly it would seem) where someone has reversed into it. My car is parked somewhere (again on the road) where no-one has ever reversed into it. This might just be luck, but it could also mean your road has awkward access, high traffic, or some other underlying cause. Statistically, now your car has been crashed into, it is in a higher risk area for being crashed into than mine. Parking incidents, such as this, are renound for people driving off and leaving the damage (see thread about someone's alfa) - as a result, if your road provides a higher risk of people driving into your car by mistake, that is also a higher risk to the insurance company because the person may not stick around to claim.

[Herman Toothrot]

r11co said:

J4CKO said:

None of their business if you don't claim and nobody claims against you, they are only interested in making money, who in their right mind is going to say, well I had a massive accident and wrecked the car, I paid for a new one myself, now please charge me a higher premium for the accident you didn't pay for.

I can see the point of material facts being considered when assessing risk, but I am inclined to agree with the above. I was recently spun some bullcrap from an insurer when I called to pay my renewal and was then informed about a large premium hike (much higher than the renewal notice amount which I was actually happy to go with as it was the cheapest for the cover I was looking for) following an incident where a double-glazing company van reversed out of a driveway across the road from me and straight into my Jag. The company accepted liability and their insurer handled everything, and I specifically asked my insurer's claims handlers not to get involved in any way as to run up any expenditure whatsoever.

I was informed that the recent accident meant statistically that I was a higher risk. I told them straight that what they were saying was bks (stating also that I hoped this call was being 'recorded for training purposes') because if they actually bothered their arse to look at the circumstances of the accident (which I had detailed to them 'for information purposes only') then they would see that the likelihood of the same or a similar accident happening again was significantly less likely as the neighbour across the road would be very unlikely to be getting their double glazing replaced by the same company so soon.

I then added that if they didn't drop the premium back to the renewal level then they would be getting sweet FA from me as I'd be going with the second cheapest quote I had which was only a few quid more.

A short silence was followed with a 'we can do that for you sir....'

You misunderstand, they decided you are a higher risk as you parked (I assume) your car where it could get hit. If you were driving they see you as someone who fails to avoid an incident even if not your fault.

They dropped it as they still want your money, not because your logic is correct.

[LOGiK]

I'm 21, I've done some silly things on the road, none resulting in an accident (my accident was the other parties fault). 110 mph down a country road is stupid, but I'm sure I did equally stupid things at 18 on two wheels. 110mph down a country road with a passenger is just disgraceful. I most certainly have not driven at any time to a point that endangered my passengers aside from when I drove after being bottled, but I quickly pulled into a petrol station and had my friend drive the rest of the way home.

This character in the clio has clearly been irresponsible on a massive level and put his life and the life of someone else in danger, however, I doubt he's going to be doing it again. While he may have another one of the same car now, if he informed insurance, substantially higher premiums, his road games will most likely be limited to racing people off the lights. I know if I'd trashed a car that bad, I'd probably be way too cautious following it.

[IainT]

TITWONK said:

this site is funny at times although a little embarrassing.

Indeed. Not helped by some of the oh so ammusing user names.