When you don’t have an argument use memes.

Try learning some basic physics as they apply to the automobile. Because at the moment you’re as ignorant as the author who like you apparently thinks Lamborghini repealed those laws. It hasn’t. It’s not a magic car.

Let the passenger side drift off the road, brake hard, perhaps even steer left hard, the car is going…

It’s obvious since you can’t concieve of a spin starting with split mu condition you’re the one who doesn’t understand.

Weren’t you just lecturing me on vectors? One tire digs in off the pavement, what happens? The car rotates if the driver brakes. It can yaw and/or roll. Usually a car yaws then rolls when it encounters something else during the spin, like the slope shown in the photo. This video simulation shows a flat spin induced by…

Right and you obeyed that 65mph speed limit out in the rural counties to the letter... bullshit. If you’re not doing at least 80mph out there you’re standing still.

All I have to do to poke a hole in the author’s absolutes and assumptions is make a plausible alternative series of events. That I have done.

Again, what it takes is to put a tire or two off the road and have a knee jerk reaction to turn the steering wheel, jab at the brake pedal or both. There isn’t a car that can’t…

split cars? Where do you get that idea? It’s just another driver who decides to violate the lane line instead of being closer to the curb. Usually they don’t run into something but this sort of crap driving? See it very frequently.

Very poor decisions != high speed. You can roll just about anything with a tire digging…

I understand vectors quite well. But you are not considering inclines, declines, soft materials, and so forth. You are only considering the nice paved road.

Who said the road isn’t flat? Not I. It’s off the road that clearly isn’t flat.

I see ordinary garden variety poor driving. People drive shitty like that every day. Usually they don’t hit anything.

Rationalizing? I am being critical of the gawker article. It does not use logic. It exploits emotion. You are rationalizing your emotional reactions.

My point because you keep missing it, is there is no evidence he was speeding. The author stated he was speeding. That’s one of the items I took issue with. You continually write you are rebutting my arguments, yet you are rebutting fabrications of your own creation. You do so again with this latest reply in the frame…

Yes, because it’s very difficult to roll a car at a speed of zero. The earth has to open up and swallow it or the wind has to take it or something of that nature. But ordinary speeds are more than enough to do it if the other required conditions are present.

Again, perception of someone with a suspended license leads to harsh treatment, not the actual events and evidence. That’s the point. Sally is a “good person” she has valid license. If she puts her driving appliance sunny side down with no significant injuries or damage to others property because she was distracted…

“The driver wasn’t charged with exceeding the speed limit.”

Do you not understand the word “indicates” ?

Because a car isn’t a burger. It isn’t really flipped.

But it’s not the issue I raise. Speeding has a very specific definition. You have to be moving at a non-zero speed to have a situation where jerking the controls leads to further problems. It doesn’t have to be greater than the number on the sign. The issue is poor driving at a non-zero speed. Which can be shorted to…

You are reacting that way. You attack me emotionally. You expect me to respond in kind. You are not using logic or even basic knowledge of automotive physics.

I see at first a car on a flat dirt surface with all four wheels on the same flat dirt surface. Then he goes over a hill with all four wheels still on the same surface.