Why "Honest John" is a tosser 205

Peter

Richard Brookman Steve Firth From the Telegraph Motoring section 27th May: "I bought a Fiat Panda in December and it recently saved my life... when pulled into the path of a large 4x4. Only when I saw my engine rolling down the road like tumbleweed did I realise that the front of my car had been sliced off. The impact was so undramatic from the inside that it felt as though we might have suffered a smashed headlight... Fiat rightly boasts about the strength of the Panda..." "Honest John" says: That's a fantastic accolade. Right, so some blind **** in a Panda pulls out in front of a 4x4. The 4x4 goes through the Panda as if it wasn't there and slices off the engine compartment bowling the engine down the road and the dozy **** driving the car thinks this proves the car is strong? And "Honest John" thinks the same? Did either of these needles think what would have happened if the 4x4 had hit the pbuttenger door? Honest John also said last week that having a large number of drivers is "very good for a car". (Someone had written in to say that he had bought a car from a dealer as "one owner", but it turned out that the one owner was a car rental company.) The logic of that escapes me. How having a million short-term drivers who couldn't give a stuff is better for a car than one careful owner was not explained. He also said that the car would have been "carefully run in". I don't think so, somehow. Well, the logic is that it will have been driven with a variety of driving styles.

Would that be "very good for a car"? Not sure I can see why.

He does seem to claim that rental cars are run in very well, but I'm not so sure.

They will be put into service from day one, with delivery mileage only, and none of the customers will be bothered to look at the odometer and think - ah, 20 miles, must drive this one with a bit of respect.

-- Rich ==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.