Read until the very last sentence if you like irony as much as I do.
Lol, there is much irony in that. I think that last sentence is grammatically incorrect, though. Just something I noticed. That “been” needs to be deleted. /Grammar Nazi.
LOL!
fuckin idiot drivers. defo not poilces fault
What’s ironic about it?
An idiot pulled out of a station without looking and is pretty much 100% responsible for fucking up that Gallardo. People like that should be pistol whipped and have their licenses taken away.
Ain’t irony a bitch? They need to go back to the school, and give a new class on “The hazards of stupid fucks that don’t look before they pull out” (Yes, I’m sure SOMEONE will make a “pull out” joke)
At least they weren’t on motorcycles!
[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
What’s ironic about it?
An idiot pulled out of a station without looking and is pretty much 100% responsible for fucking up that Gallardo. People like that should be pistol whipped and have their licenses taken away. [/quote]
The ironic part is they gave a lecture on “road safety” which would encompass looking for people about to pull out, and assume that at all times someone’s going to jump out in front of you.
And that’s why we can’t have nice things.
Poor car, such a lovely thing too =[
Let’s get a conspiracy theory going on how there was no car that pulled out and the driver just fucked up, quick where are the witnesses?(DEAD!)
Nice Red…makes sense to me!
I keep seeing a recurring theme of normal cars being on top of exotics lately.
[quote]Sick Rick wrote:
What’s ironic about it?
An idiot pulled out of a station without looking and is pretty much 100% responsible for fucking up that Gallardo. People like that should be pistol whipped and have their licenses taken away. [/quote]
Irony - Police returning from a lecture on driving safety in a Gallardo traveling so fast that they can’t safely react to an oblivious driver slowly pulling out of a petrol station resulting a bunch of park cars being damaged and one parked car being thrown on top of the Gallardo due to the force and momentum of the automobile coming to such a violent halt
If the Po-po wasn’t driving so fast (which there wasn’t a need as they weren’t transporting organs which is what the vehicle was intended for, that and chasing down criminals which the cops were not in the process of doing) they could’ve safely reacted to the dumb-ass driver pulling out in front of them successfully avoiding this whole ironic situation … am I painting an obvious enough picture for ya or should I dumb it down some more?
[quote]polo77j wrote:
Irony - Police returning from a lecture on driving safety in a Gallardo traveling so fast that they can’t safely react to an oblivious driver slowly pulling out of a petrol station resulting a bunch of park cars being damaged and one parked car being thrown on top of the Gallardo due to the force and momentum of the automobile coming to such a violent halt
If the Po-po wasn’t driving so fast (which there wasn’t a need as they weren’t transporting organs which is what the vehicle was intended for, that and chasing down criminals which the cops were not in the process of doing) they could’ve safely reacted to the dumb-ass driver pulling out in front of them successfully avoiding this whole ironic situation … am I painting an obvious enough picture for ya or should I dumb it down some more?[/quote]
Okay so I missed the very last line. I get it. And where did you find that they weren’t chasing anyone of transporting organs? Doesn’t say it anywhere in the article, does it? So maybe this wasn’t all so ironic? I don’t know where you got that info from, but I’m going on the article alone here. I don’t know if you’re ever tried looking out for people exiting unexpectedly while driving 100+ mph (I’m guessing they were going at least that fast, because if not then the officers were in fact retarded) but on city streets you can’t exactly stop on a dime or evade like that.
So there could be no irony at all.
Get it, or should I dumb it down some more, since it seems I’m not the only stupid one here?
Polo maybe you could dumb it down some more for me… what part of the article stated they were driving insanely fast? Or maybe it’s because I’m not a collission expert who is capable of telling exactly how fast one car was going based on one picture.
[quote]RenegadeDragon wrote:
Polo maybe you could dumb it down some more for me… what part of the article stated they were driving insanely fast? Or maybe it’s because I’m not a collission expert who is capable of telling exactly how fast one car was going based on one picture.[/quote]
You’d have to be doing a fair pace to get under a car and lift it onto yours - presumably.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
RenegadeDragon wrote:
Polo maybe you could dumb it down some more for me… what part of the article stated they were driving insanely fast? Or maybe it’s because I’m not a collission expert who is capable of telling exactly how fast one car was going based on one picture.
You’d have to be doing a fair pace to get under a car and lift it onto yours - presumably.[/quote]
Agreed, however most of these types of cars are pretty low on the ground. Look at the front bumper, the first aid kid is not even damaged which makes me believe the car was redirected upwards instead of a straight on collision.
Slick Rick, Renegade, your powers of deduction and reading comprehension are 4th grade at best …
First let me define “irony” for you pertaining to this situation and I’ll explain it very simply for you since you can’t come to this very obvious conclusion yourselves: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
Now, for a pair of cops returning from a lecture pertaining to driving safety to be traveling at such a high rate to have another PARKED vehicle end up ON TOP OF THEIR CAR is pretty fucking ironic.
Now, since the both of you have a hard time with reading comprehension and have to be spoon fed everything I"ll explain it to you: Renegade, I"m not going to answer you as it has already been answered but I will comment on how ignorant you are about elementary physics to not be able to come to the conclusion that a car has to be traveling pretty fucking fast to have another PARKED vehicle end up ON TOP OF theirs one way or another.
And Slick Rick: It’s implied in the article (you do know what implied means right? or do I have to define that too?) that they were strictly returning from the aforementioned lecture as I’m sure it would’ve been reported they were in a high pursuit of a criminal at the time COUPLED WITH the petrol customer exiting the station UNAWARE that a POLICE CAR ARMED WITH A SIREN would have warned him in advance of their approach; the petrol customer would have been aware of the oncoming high speed pursuit and not pulling out in front of it THUS PREVENTING this whole fucking discussion.
Any other questions will be directed to my secretary as I’m tire of explaining simple fucking logic to you morons
[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
Lol, there is much irony in that. I think that last sentence is grammatically incorrect, though. Just something I noticed. That “been” needs to be deleted. /Grammar Nazi.[/quote]
Haha, my inner grammar nazi caught that as well. I have to re-read it with the correction, otherwise my head will explode. 
I apologize for not being the master of physics you are Polo. What was the speed limit on the street? That isn’t part of the article. From my very basic understanding of physics a vehicle going 65 mph can and will cause quite a bit of devestation when brought to sudden stop. I’m not sure about Massachusetts, however out here we do have gas stations next to some highways with speed limits up to 65 mph. I’d be pretty pissed if I’m behind soemone and I have to slow down to a speed where they can “safely reacted to the dumb-ass driver pulling out in front of them.”
But again, I apologize for now knowing exactly how fast the lamborghini, a very low, aerodynamic vehicle, was going in order for a much higher vehicle to end up ontop of it, after the lamborghini was struck on it’s side.
It would also be awesome if you could insult me some more when you post again.
[quote]crimson_lily wrote:
FlameofOsiris wrote:
Lol, there is much irony in that. I think that last sentence is grammatically incorrect, though. Just something I noticed. That “been” needs to be deleted. /Grammar Nazi.
Haha, my inner grammar nazi caught that as well. I have to re-read it with the correction, otherwise my head will explode. :)[/quote]
I know! I was so confused when I read it. Shouldn’t a professional writer or his editor be able to catch that? Either the “been” needs to be removed, or the sentence should have read: “The two officers were returning from a convention in Cremona, where they had been addressed BY a student audience on road safety.” That would clear up this whole debate on whether or not the situation was ironic. =P Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s what it was supposed to say now, haha.
And for Stuntman Mike:^^^
