RugbyRebels

Lucky to survive this it seems - such a cruel blow after all the guy's been through in recent years, and the recovery he had made.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/56172067

Of course it wouldn't be that cruel if he was DUI

Digby wrote:Of course it wouldn't be that cruel if he was DUI

Early reports suggest he wasn't.

Although with his injuries being a wee bit pished would have helped. The article on the beeb suggests multiple breaks in his bones and open fractures.

Did chuckle at this line:

Carlos Gonzalez said the golfer was "not able to stand under his own power" before being removed from the vehicle which had sustained major damage

Well with open fractures that isn't surprising is it!

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:Of course it wouldn't be that cruel if he was DUI

Early reports suggest he wasn't.

Although with his injuries being a wee bit pished would have helped. The article on the beeb suggests multiple breaks in his bones and open fractures.

Did chuckle at this line:

Carlos Gonzalez said the golfer was "not able to stand under his own power" before being removed from the vehicle which had sustained major damage

Well with open fractures that isn't surprising is it!

The article also says he was speeding like fook. Deserves all he gets. Sorry, I'm a big fan of speed limits. They're there for a reason.

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:

Digby wrote:Of course it wouldn't be that cruel if he was DUI

Early reports suggest he wasn't.

Although with his injuries being a wee bit pished would have helped. The article on the beeb suggests multiple breaks in his bones and open fractures.

Did chuckle at this line:

Carlos Gonzalez said the golfer was "not able to stand under his own power" before being removed from the vehicle which had sustained major damage

Well with open fractures that isn't surprising is it!

The article also says he was speeding like fook. Deserves all he gets. Sorry, I'm a big fan of speed limits. They're there for a reason.

I saw he was allegedly speeding. "Relatively greater" is the most random term I have heard for speeding. What does that actually mean. 72 in a 70, 100 in a 70?

7.00 am- ish, so either a late night or early morning.
Dangerous section of the road:
"However, because it is downhill, it slopes and curves, that area has a high frequency of accidents. It is not uncommon." (local police), presumably plenty of warning signs.so we've got due care & attention too...
Not looking good.

Galfon wrote:7.00 am- ish, so either a late night or early morning.
Dangerous section of the road:
"However, because it is downhill, it slopes and curves, that area has a high frequency of accidents. It is not uncommon." (local police), presumably plenty of warning signs.so we've got due care & attention too...
Not looking good.

Doesn't sound good but trying to be fair (although he perhaps doesn't deserve it), it wouldn't be unusual for a golfer to be heading to the course at that time. As "host" and driving the title sponsor car he may have been heading there. Edit: he was hist last week so scratch that last sentence.

This doesn't look exactly safe for the fast bowlers

Well you don't see that every day, a left arm spinner coming around the wicket to a left handed batsman essentially ignoring a lot of the rough outside the off stump. England clearly wondering what to do about Pant's hitting ability

Digby wrote:Well you don't see that every day, a left arm spinner coming around the wicket to a left handed batsman essentially ignoring a lot of the rough outside the off stump. England clearly wondering what to do about Pant's hitting ability

I don't think this contributed to the crash though.

"A reckless driving charge has a lot of elements into it, this is purely an accident," Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters.
There no evidence Woods was impaired by drugs or alcohol, he added.
"He was not drunk," he said on Wednesday. "We can throw that one out."
He added the most Woods could face would be a low-level offence known as an infraction if investigators concluded that he was speeding or not paying attention, the AFP news agency reports.

Not good publicity for the vehicle, or local highway safety measures if his driving was ok.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56193243

Galfon wrote:

Digby wrote:Well you don't see that every day, a left arm spinner coming around the wicket to a left handed batsman essentially ignoring a lot of the rough outside the off stump. England clearly wondering what to do about Pant's hitting ability

I don't think this contributed to the crash though.

The danger of driving on a spinning wicket

Big D wrote:

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote:
Early reports suggest he wasn't.

Although with his injuries being a wee bit pished would have helped. The article on the beeb suggests multiple breaks in his bones and open fractures.

Did chuckle at this line:


Well with open fractures that isn't surprising is it!

The article also says he was speeding like fook. Deserves all he gets. Sorry, I'm a big fan of speed limits. They're there for a reason.

I saw he was allegedly speeding. "Relatively greater" is the most random term I have heard for speeding. What does that actually mean. 72 in a 70, 100 in a 70?

87 in a 40... Yeah, cwnt.

Stom wrote: 87 in a 40... Yeah, cwnt.

"..because it is downhill, it slopes and curves, that area has a high frequency of accidents. It is not uncommon." (local police)

Any mitigating circumstances Sir ?

Galfon wrote:

Stom wrote: 87 in a 40... Yeah, cwnt.

"..because it is downhill, it slopes and curves, that area has a high frequency of accidents. It is not uncommon." (local police)

Any mitigating circumstances Sir ?

The part from the police chief about the sudden increase in speed seemed to be covering for him speeding but not sure why he really needed to include it.

Not especially clear whether that speed was the top speed achieved or whether he was winging it at that speed for a large part of his journey.

Either way it is fortunate more people weren't hurt.