Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!

z1a

"They would of done there nut."

I like what you did there.

foomanchu

See here for more reading Driver claiming she blacked out - not liable for crash?!

SG27

Mercdriver wrote: »

You missed an opportunity to really wind up the pedants on here who should really keep their grammar and spelling OCD internal unless it is unclear what a poster is saying.

You should have said:

Thanks I'll bare that in mind. They would of done there nut.

I was actually going to write that but thought no one would get the joke! :rotfl:

SG27

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Aka anti lock brakes which might account for why you didn't lock them.

More due to the fact I never touched them...

SG27

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Under what act?

No idea....

AndyMc.....

SG27 wrote: »

No idea....

Exactly they can't make you see your doctor.

Mercdriver

z1a wrote: »

"They would of done there nut."

I like what you did there.

Thank you. Subtle, but I think effective

z1a

Mercdriver wrote: »

Thank you. Subtle, but I think effective

I missed the first bit "bare".

Mercdriver

z1a wrote: »

I missed the first bit "bare".

Yes, I went for the full house, innit?

Nasqueron

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Let’s see you get cell site analysis for a simple accident. It won’t get authorised as DCI’s don’t like paying for traffic jobs.

That's called moving the goal posts.


You said they couldn't prove she wasn't using the phone without seizing it nor that they could prove it was with her, that's incorrect. Whether the police choose to do so for a basic RTA is irrelevant as that wasn't the point I was answering.


You could simply admit you were wrong and move on and you'd look a whole lot better than trying to keep changing the argument to make it appear you're right.