I didn’t assume anything. I have proposed a series of events that lead to the outcome in the photograph. This means that the argument that it must have been at high speed is false. It’s called logic.

Furthermore the condition of the car in the photograph leads a reasonable person to conclude it was not a high speed…

“You argued the damage you cannot see on the car must not be there and is therefor proof the accident happened at slow speed.”

The car was going less than 45mph. it took a small bump, poor driving and over it went.

Again, lambos are difficult to flip if you stay on the pavement. Put two wheels off the road. Now jerk the controls, stab at the pedals. That is drive like most people in north america. Add some terrain. See what happens.

Simpleton, I am sorry that it is so difficult to deal with the fact you’ve been emotionally manipulated. The article above fails logically. Because I point that out does not mean I am defending the driver. It means I am pointing out the failures of the article and the sub par knowledge or deliberate prose of its…

Speed is if you mean it has to be non-zero. The rest is question of geometry and physics. Lambos aren’t meant to go off the side of a two lane road. What happens if you go into split mu and then jerk the controls? What happens if that car has a lot of power and is very responsive to driver inputs?

If the lambo stays on the pavement it’s hard to flip. If it goes off the pavement and the driver jerks the controls.... that’s something else entirely.

This is a logic exercise which people are failing.

1) Speeding is an assumption. The only way it is a good assumption is because of something such as ‘everyone speeds on that road’ There is no proof. Charged brought by the government are not proof. And he wasn’t charged with speeding, see 2) For suspension see 3)

Another simpleton heard from. Under the present system they are all “just”. That doesn’t invalidate my points about the article. But you like the others fell for its emotionally manipulative prose and now have to lash out at me for pointing it out because it makes you feel foolish.

Look bubs, if I had children I would teach them to think for themselves so they would become actual adults instead of being obedient permanent children. The sort of permanent children that need lots of government to watch over them and care for them. The kind of permanent children that need punishments and strict…

The point I am making is that all these assumptions are made because of who and what, not the physical evidence. If this were an accord on its roof driven by a sympathetic character nobody would be putting the obvious photographic evidence of lack of high speed damage aside.

Lambos are more difficult to flip so long…

Which is irrelevant to my comment critical of the article.

On a nice dry paved road and all four tires on it, sure. However the terrain I see in the photo could flip it. Just need to get one or two wheels into that mess, do the wrong thing to react to it, and over it goes.

Vehicles may be “flipped” at very low speed. It’s about geometry more than speed.

You’re not being emotional yet you equate being critical of the gawker article as defending the driver and you keep invoking the children.

The article is shit and I pointed out it is shit. You, having fallen for the emotional manipulations don’t like that I’ve pointed that out. It makes you feel foolish so you lash…

“Barring any sort of mechanical issue, I would argue that if you put your car into a ditch your speed was in fact unreasonable and improper.”

Another simpleton heard from.

If he was going a 100mph it wouldn’t be merely upside down.
Here’s how little it takes to put a car on its roof. I spent 15 seconds finding this:

You come to where I live. You drive I-294 at 55mph, the legal speed limit. You get back to me about obeying the letter of the law. Or better yet, a safe driver like yourself can take something like one of my cars out at 2am and drive where I tell you just like you do on your way to work in the morning and you’ll get a…

You’re making assumptions and drawing conclusions from them. Which is the point I’m making. If we pretend for a moment the car is a Honda Accord driven by sally soccermom what are we looking at? We’re looking at the result of sally dodging a squirrel or something, not some madman. The photograph indicates relatively…