On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:17:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 30/05/2021 13:03, Spike wrote:
On 30/05/2021 11:29, T i m wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I should have checked for a tag to identify the owner of the deer that
caused �60 of damage to my car!

I don't believe you.

I wonder why. Pre-conceived 'understanding' of everything?

anyone round here who has had a 'deer cause damage
to their car', has written it off and often ended up in hospital.

Ah, it must be just because it's 'round there' then.

When daughters BF hit a deer that ran across the road in front of them
it broke the headlamp and number plate, no one went to hospital and
the parts were no more than �50. The chances are it didn't happen
'round there' though.

So, you *do* understand the technique of exaggerating for effect, as
you've just accused TNP of it. All you now need to do is recognise when
you're using it to others to further your anti-meat-eating cause
disguised as veganism.


Two cases I know of. One utterly destroyed the car, the other did that
*and* it ended up after rolling 50 yards in a field with the occupant
with a broken shoulder and arm. Both were at 50mph speeds which is
normal 'round here' for roads that you can see for miles ahead on - but
not over the hedges and into the trees that line it.

Its rare, but when it happens the damage is usually severe.

Obviously a townie crawling along at 15mph in suburbia would not
experience the same damage

90mph VW Golf, about 1000kg. 0mph deer (in the direction of the collision, as it was crossing the road at 90 degrees), about 100kg. Consider the conservation of momentum, and the crumple zones of cars, then explain why you're utterly wrong. You might also like to consider the shape of the front of the car, and that the deer was catapulted up in the air (it hit the canoe on the roof which then split it in half). Here's the damage caused: https://i.imgur.com/pETDt1J.jpg - I lost the VW badge!