Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Also they were saying the driver was found to be under influence???

Yeah, apparently he was on pot and booze.

But he didn't crash into a tree on the side of the road. He fell down a massive f**king hole in the middle of it. Trying to use his intoxication to defend the government's criminal negligence occasioning death is just wrong.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/172015-old-pac/page/2/#findComment-3658764
Share on other sites

Exactly.

"Oh if he wasnt under influence, he could have pulled up in time"

yeah right, they werent there, they wouldnt know that, stupid government

Hmm.....

Mr Menzies said medical toxicology evidence would later be given that would show Mr Holt, who was driving the car, had a blood alcohol level that was "marginally above the legal limit" and had ingested cannabis.

Referring to the cannabis, Mr Menzies said: "And that amount could well have had some effect on Mr Holt's capacity to stop the car before this accident occurred."

Undoubtedly it could have had some effect on his capacity to stop the car. Alcohol and cannabis are known to affect people's reactions and co-ordination.

But you know what else had an effect on Mr Holt's capacity to stop the car before the accident occurred? A massive hole in the f**king ground that didn't used to be there. If there was no hole, he would have stopped without falling into rushing water. Actually, he wouldn't have even needed to stop, and that would have removed the possibility of an accident altogether.

Paul Menzies can go f**k himself.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/172015-old-pac/page/2/#findComment-3661837
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
    • That's my life. Past-Duncan has a lot to answer for
×
×
  • Create New...