Sun article - You know that ferrari owner ....
Discussion
From the sun (16th june )
------
A high flying city boss waited a year to collect his new ferrari - then wrecked it 4 minutes later
Simon nimmo splashed out £175,000 on the rare 575 F1 supercar
But the day he collected the 212 mph beast from the dealer ended in disaster less than four minutes after pulling off the forecourt of the maranello garage in egham surrey, simon drove it into a pothole.
The crater smashed one of the £2000 wheels and cracked the ferraris front suspension.
Instead of arriving home triumphantley in the same car that david beckham owns simon got a lift in a recovery truck.
As he waited for the mechanic to arrive he suffered the indignity of being heckled by passing motorists
" he must hold the world record for the fastest ferrari driver to wreck his brand new super car "
Simon was left with a £1,750 repair bill following his maiden journey.
He is checking whether he can sue anyone over the poor state of the road
---
Can you imagine that , waiting a year for your new Ferrari then having to have £1,750 worth of work done on it it 4 minutes after you get out of the forcourt
Nasty
>>> Edited by atgsambo on Wednesday 16th June 14:26
------
A high flying city boss waited a year to collect his new ferrari - then wrecked it 4 minutes later
Simon nimmo splashed out £175,000 on the rare 575 F1 supercar
But the day he collected the 212 mph beast from the dealer ended in disaster less than four minutes after pulling off the forecourt of the maranello garage in egham surrey, simon drove it into a pothole.
The crater smashed one of the £2000 wheels and cracked the ferraris front suspension.
Instead of arriving home triumphantley in the same car that david beckham owns simon got a lift in a recovery truck.
As he waited for the mechanic to arrive he suffered the indignity of being heckled by passing motorists
" he must hold the world record for the fastest ferrari driver to wreck his brand new super car "
Simon was left with a £1,750 repair bill following his maiden journey.
He is checking whether he can sue anyone over the poor state of the road
---
Can you imagine that , waiting a year for your new Ferrari then having to have £1,750 worth of work done on it it 4 minutes after you get out of the forcourt
Nasty
>>> Edited by atgsambo on Wednesday 16th June 14:26
SGirl said:
He is checking whether he can sue anyone over the poor state of the road
Quite right. Local council/Highways Agency etc are paid to maintain roads properly. Do a crap job they should be sued by injured parties. Luckily in this case it was just a car. It could so easily have been a cyclist getting physically injured.
DAZ
Sun said:
The crater smashed one of the £2000 wheels and cracked the ferraris front suspension.
Contradictory Sun said:
Simon was left with a £1,750 repair bill following his maiden journey.
Usual high standards of reporting non-news then. So just how does smashing a £2K wheel result in a £1,750 repair bill?This is what i also wondered jeremy
I copyed it word for word out of the sun newspaper so its no error on my part
just found a link on the suns website
www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004272369,,00.html
>> Edited by atgsambo on Wednesday 16th June 16:12
I copyed it word for word out of the sun newspaper so its no error on my part
just found a link on the suns website
www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004272369,,00.html
>> Edited by atgsambo on Wednesday 16th June 16:12
dazren said:
Quite right. Local council/Highways Agency etc are paid to maintain roads properly. Do a crap job they should be sued by injured parties. Luckily in this case it was just a car. It could so easily have been a cyclist getting physically injured.
Sure - but then again if you're driving with any degree of awareness (and I don't suppose you'd switch to autopilot mode minutes after buying a car like that...) then you should be aware of all potential hazards. That includes avoiding potholes. If it'd been a toddler in the road, he'd have surely avoided that? So why should a pothole be so different?
That said, I reckon that whoever said above that there's an element of Schadenfreude about this was bang on. "He's got money - well not any more he hasn't" kind of thing. I suppose this is the kind of attitude that could be said to indirectly influence certain types of people to key nice cars because they haven't got the money to buy one.
Not the same as a pothole,but damage to a car all the same.About 6 years ago I reversed into a bollard in shad thames.Stupid,you may cry.The bollards were on the pavement,to prevent people straddling the pavemnet to park.They had put one lone bollard .......... about 2 ft off the edge of the pavement....for no apparent reason at all.The local council coughed up and rightly so.They have since removed the bollard,as it was probably a contractor having a laugh.Its like falling down a manhole cover or a similar accident where injury/damage is caused.
SGirl said:I don't know what to think of this. On one hand, I'll get on my
Quite right. Local council/Highways Agency etc are paid to maintain roads properly. Do a crap job they should be sued by injured parties. Luckily in this case it was just a car. It could so easily have been a cyclist getting physically injured.
Sure - but then again if you're driving with any degree of awareness (and I don't suppose you'd switch to autopilot mode minutes after buying a car like that...) then you should be aware of all potential hazards. That includes avoiding potholes. If it'd been a toddler in the road, he'd have surely avoided that? So why should a pothole be so different?
That said, I reckon that whoever said above that there's an element of Schadenfreude about this was bang on. "He's got money - well not any more he hasn't" kind of thing. I suppose this is the kind of attitude that could be said to indirectly influence certain types of people to key nice cars because they haven't got the money to buy one.
, when people won't take the responsability for what they do, and sue someone else for damages, on the other hand, authorities, councils, etc. set up speed limits in order to take responsability off you, so you and others can drive "safely" (allegedly, I haste to add). Setting up rules that cut your freedom and personal decisions down are contraproductive imho. If someone tells me how to do, I wouldn't do as I'd do when I decide how to do it by myself, even when I'd do it in the same way in both cases. I have sub-ordination difficulties
Simply put in one example:
a) There is a road with only basic rules, and I'm fully responsible for driving it. I'd concentrate on my driving, and put more weight on to decide which speed is safe.
b) The same road with speed limit. Someone tells me what is right, and takes the responsability off me, so I don't think twice on what speed is right for the condiditons. There's a pothole which damages my car, although I was stuck to the speed limit. Of course I'd sue whoever took the responsability to tell me what max. speed is right on that road.
dazren said:
SGirl said:
atgsambo said:
He is checking whether he can sue anyone over the poor state of the road
Quite right. Local council/Highways Agency etc are paid to maintain roads properly. Do a crap job they should be sued by injured parties. Luckily in this case it was just a car. It could so easily have been a cyclist getting physically injured.
DAZ
I couldn't agree more, some of the roads around here are absolutely apalling, I find myself having to drive around craters and poorly fitting manholes everywhere I go. What the hell do we pay road tax for? For more buses to
our roads up that's what! SGirl said:
Sure - but then again if you're driving with any degree of awareness (and I don't suppose you'd switch to autopilot mode minutes after buying a car like that...) then you should be aware of all potential hazards. That includes avoiding potholes. If it'd been a toddler in the road, he'd have surely avoided that? So why should a pothole be so different?
A toddler would be much easier to see than a pothole, potholes tend to leap out at you from under the car in front, by which time it's usually much too late to avoid them. Also, being flat and at ground level tends to make them difficult to see in low slung sportscars.
I even find that when I do see them it's too dangerous to swerve around them, either because someone is coming the other way or I'm not at a safe speed to be doing sudden, unnecessary manoevers.
>> Edited by Neil_H on Wednesday 16th June 21:41
SGirl said:
Sure - but then again if you're driving with any degree of awareness (and I don't suppose you'd switch to autopilot mode minutes after buying a car like that...) then you should be aware of all potential hazards. That includes avoiding potholes. If it'd been a toddler in the road, he'd have surely avoided that? So why should a pothole be so different?
Come off it. Can anyone here claim they have NEVER driven into a pothole? The light can be bad, it can be raining, they can be covered with water and gee sometimes the buggers are just there in front of you and something in your brain stops you avoiding it.....maybe its the kid on a bike to your left or the car coming at you on the right.
Knowing the road in question very well it had several nasty potholes in it very close to the garage in question, the road here opens out from single lane to dual carriageway off a roundabout so the traffic is often busy / changing lanes / doing general numpty things obsuring the road surface ahead and causing you to change lanes / take avoiding action.
Sounds like the guy was just very unlcky - hardly newsworthy!
Sounds like the guy was just very unlcky - hardly newsworthy!
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff