Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
Escapegoat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Or the police's insurer have decided it's cheaper to settle than fight. We will never know.
Nicely done - so you claim you might be right even when all of the evidence is that you're totally wrong?And despite quoting yourself, you still haven't apologised to the OP. Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
One who can, when crossing an intersection and suddenly seeing blue lights heading for them, brake to a stop, come to the realisation that the car heading for them is probably not going to stop or take other avoiding action, decide that the best action for them is probably to reverse, declutch, put their car into reverse, ensure that there's nothing behind them, rev the engine, release the clutch and quickly reverse out of the way - all in the space of three seconds!
TooMany2cvs said:
And my answer still stands.
By the way, there is a third option, and it's far and away the most likely.
No, your answer doesn't make sense for the questions I asked, and it's clear you're being deliberately obtuse. Fair enough, it's your choice, but your making yourself look a bit daft, so I think I'll leave you to it.By the way, there is a third option, and it's far and away the most likely.
OP, well done for sticking to your guns and seeing it through. I'm sure many others would've just sucked it up faced with the same circumstances.
Did you ever find out if the officers were reprimanded for either their driving or their conduct during the investigation? A few pages back you said you were going to get in contact with the Inspector. Did anything come of that?
Escapegoat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
You know what they say about the facts - there are always three sets. My set, your set, and the truth.
Wriggling much? It should be patently obvious that in any situation, the truth may very match one side or the other 100%. In this case, you now have evidence of which side of the story the truth actually matches. And still you won't apologise. I'd like to think that this thread and its outcome would inform you in the future, and you won't simply attack OPs out of blind scepticism. But there's something about your posting manners that suggests I shouldn't hold my breath.
How would the outcome of this thread have any bearing on a different thread?
I think it perfectly fair to challenge any poster as to the validity of their story and not to simply blindly accept what people say.
Blind skepticism is misnomer. The term is blind faith, there is no such thing as blind skepticism.
In my experience people tent to believe a version of events that supports their prejudices and challenge those that don't. However this tells you nothing about how likely that version of events is to be true.
WRT the OP, good job. You must be very relieved.
Vroom101 said:
Did you ever find out if the officers were reprimanded for either their driving or their conduct during the investigation? A few pages back you said you were going to get in contact with the Inspector. Did anything come of that?
Apparently the driver was suspended from driving duties but I have no evidence of that being true. My accident with the police was their third in that week. They'd also t-boned a car at a junction and hit a lorry on the M180. I asked if there was a culture of recklessness were driving was concerned but he ensured me there wasn't.One piece of advice where your car insurance is concerned. Make sure you have legal cover on your plan. It may be a little more expensive but worth it.
Devil2575 said:
Blind skepticism is misnomer. The term is blind faith, there is no such thing as blind skepticism.
Welcome to the english language, it's extensible and allows creativity. Putting two words together isn't even that, though. I used "Blind skepticism" to indicate the polar opposite to blind faith.Because that's what 2CV (and the not-much-lamented LoonR1) do time and time again in this section of PH.
Escapegoat said:
Devil2575 said:
Blind skepticism is misnomer. The term is blind faith, there is no such thing as blind skepticism.
Welcome to the english language, it's extensible and allows creativity. Putting two words together isn't even that, though. I used "Blind skepticism" to indicate the polar opposite to blind faith.Because that's what 2CV (and the not-much-lamented LoonR1) do time and time again in this section of PH.
If your blind you're not being sketpical. The opposite of blind faith would be total skepticism, which isn't actually a bad thing.
TooMany2cvs said:
Vroom101 said:
and it's clear you're being deliberately obtuse.
No, I'm not. I think what I've written is perfectly clear - but I do appreciate that you may have to engage your brain for a moment to follow the hint. Sorry.Rovinghawk said:
Devil2575 said:
If your blind
Seems a bit naughty criticising the other guy's English when you write like that.When I write like that? What make a simple mistake and use your rather than you're?
The point I was making was important, because people shouldn't try to conflate skepticism with blind faith.
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and not simply taking someones word for something. The fact that in this case the OP won out is neither here nor there. No one at the start of this thread could have known that this would be the case and to try to claim some kind of victory now over another poster who treated the OP with skepticism is pretty meaningless.
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 27th April 09:46
KungFooPanda2 said:
My guess on the reason they settled is that the impact on the force involved would have been embarrassing. Four police officers written statements proved 'conveniently untruthful' by black box data.
PCC elections coming up... We've never seen so many police patrols and beat bobbies around these parts ever before the last few weeks so perhaps your outcome is indeed a whitewash! Well done for sticking at it and getting justice. I hope there was no lasting damage to you and yours as a result, it must have been stressful. Hopefully that force will take the lessons learnt and buck their ideas up for the future.
What amazes me out of all of this is that they STILL won't chase helmetless crims on bikes in case the poor dears get hurt, yet TWO drivers barrel through a red light in poor road and visibility conditions without activating the sirens that they have for just these situations!
Devil2575 said:
The point I was making was important, because people shouldn't try to conflate skepticism with blind faith.
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and not simply taking someones word for something. The fact that in this case the OP won out is neither here nor there. No one at the start of this thread could have known that this would be the case and to try to claim some kind of victory now over another poster who treated the OP with skepticism is pretty meaningless.
I think the 'blind scepticism' remark stems from the fact that the OP was providing us with more and more evidence to back up his account, and yet our friend Mr 2cvs was still 'blindy' sceptical despite this. So the 'blind sceptical' misnomer was quite accurate.There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and not simply taking someones word for something. The fact that in this case the OP won out is neither here nor there. No one at the start of this thread could have known that this would be the case and to try to claim some kind of victory now over another poster who treated the OP with skepticism is pretty meaningless.
I'll see your misnomer, and raise you one oxymoron
Edited by Vroom101 on Wednesday 27th April 23:47
Vroom101 said:
Devil2575 said:
The point I was making was important, because people shouldn't try to conflate skepticism with blind faith.
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and not simply taking someones word for something. The fact that in this case the OP won out is neither here nor there. No one at the start of this thread could have known that this would be the case and to try to claim some kind of victory now over another poster who treated the OP with skepticism is pretty meaningless.
I think the 'blind scepticism' remark stems from the fact that the OP was providing us with more and more evidence to back up his account, and yet our friend Mr 2cvs was still 'blindy' sceptical despite this. So the 'blind sceptical' misnomer was quite accurate.There is nothing wrong with being skeptical and not simply taking someones word for something. The fact that in this case the OP won out is neither here nor there. No one at the start of this thread could have known that this would be the case and to try to claim some kind of victory now over another poster who treated the OP with skepticism is pretty meaningless.
I'll see your misnomer, and raise you one oxymoron
Edited by Vroom101 on Wednesday 27th April 23:47
J
Pete317 said:
Escapegoat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Or the police's insurer have decided it's cheaper to settle than fight. We will never know.
Nicely done - so you claim you might be right even when all of the evidence is that you're totally wrong?And despite quoting yourself, you still haven't apologised to the OP. Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
One who can, when crossing an intersection and suddenly seeing blue lights heading for them, brake to a stop, come to the realisation that the car heading for them is probably not going to stop or take other avoiding action, decide that the best action for them is probably to reverse, declutch, put their car into reverse, ensure that there's nothing behind them, rev the engine, release the clutch and quickly reverse out of the way - all in the space of three seconds!
Vroom101 said:
I think the 'blind scepticism' remark stems from the fact that the OP was providing us with more and more evidence to back up his account, and yet our friend Mr 2cvs was still 'blindy' sceptical despite this. So the 'blind sceptical' misnomer was quite accurate.
I'll see your misnomer, and raise you one oxymoron
I'd suggest that the OP was not providing any evidence, only his version of events I'll see your misnomer, and raise you one oxymoron
Edited by Vroom101 on Wednesday 27th April 23:47
Devil2575 said:
Vroom101 said:
I think the 'blind scepticism' remark stems from the fact that the OP was providing us with more and more evidence to back up his account, and yet our friend Mr 2cvs was still 'blindy' sceptical despite this. So the 'blind sceptical' misnomer was quite accurate.
I'll see your misnomer, and raise you one oxymoron
I'd suggest that the OP was not providing any evidence, only his version of events I'll see your misnomer, and raise you one oxymoron
Edited by Vroom101 on Wednesday 27th April 23:47
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff