[Closed] Porsche being sued for death of Paul Walker

So nothing to do with hitting a lamppost while doing twice the speed limit then.

The makers of the lamp post will be getting twitchy.

Surely it was forseeable some idiots would smash their car into it at warp speed?

But im sure that if porsche had fitted ejecter seats or not made the car in the first place it would never have happenned. Its gross neglegence on their part and as such have left themselves wide open. Because it's a well known fact that people never die in non 'super' cars.

Sounds like they hope to cash in on the current anti-VAG feeling at the moment. The driver's cfamily lost last year against Porsche.

There was something beautifully circular about an actor who made films that immortalised people who drive like cocks then to be best known for dying in a car being driven by someone driving like a cock.

It's a great ironic twist that all along it was the car's fault.

It's a crazy country at times. My US company was sued for not changing a medical report at the patients request to their desired outcome. Needless to say we won but only the lawyers really win.

There was something beautifully circular about an actor who made films that immortalised people who drive like cocks then to be best known for dying in a car being driven by someone driving like a cock.

[sanctimonious waffle]I'm not sure you can call anything about it "beautiful" or "great", he was by all accounts a rather nice chap and very philanthropic, and whilst one suspects he may not have been urging the driver to slow down he was ultimately entirely blameless. Still, if you're stabbed to death by someone who argues on forums we can call it a great ironic twist![/sanctimonious waffle]

If you read the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)

I think they have a point. We don't need cars that can do more than the speed limit, on public roads. Perhaps a little more for overtaking. But not 150mph. Perhaps the makers should take more responsibility for the consequences of the metal death machines that they sell at such huge profits.

So the drivers widow sued, and it was found that driver error was the cause. Why (assuming she feels she has to sue [i]someone[/i]) is the daughter not suing the driver/his estate?

d the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)

In one of the links in the article, in the original suit the car was found to have been modified (doesn't say how though) it's a little harsh to blame Porsche for someone changing the car then whinge that the safety systems didn't protect them from those possible changes.

But not 150mph. Perhaps the makers should take more responsibility for the consequences of the metal death machines that they sell at such huge profits.

If you read the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)

I think they have a point. We don't need cars that can do more than the speed limit, on public roads. Perhaps a little more for overtaking. But not 150mph. Perhaps the makers should take more responsibility for the consequences of the metal death machines that they sell at such huge profits.

The car wasn't doing a particularly ridiculous and pointless speed, only ridiculous for being in a built up area. Probably could have driven a Yaris around at 94mph if he really wanted, and that would have been a lot less safe.

Probably could have driven a Yaris around at 94mph

This. Bet you'd struggle to find a new car today that can't do 100mph

This is an interesting line in the article:

The lawsuit contends that the car was travelling much slower when it went out of control, according to TMZ.

So it sped [u]up[/u] to 94mph, from a much slower speed, after control of the vehicle was lost? No wonder Porsche are being sued, there must be some sensors that detect loss of control and decide to floor the accelerator or something....

'Murca....

its a Porsche, made in Germany, where they have roads you can legally drive at 150+ mph, that also have a very high safety record...

speed doesn't cause crashes, inappropriate use of it is the problem....

Only the lawyers will win on that one.

It's sad and unfortunate for the family and I'm sure the grieving is driving this, but surely there is someone with some sense in the family that should be saying don't do it.

It might not be the family hat decided to bring the lawsuit, it could be the life insurance company looking to avoid a payout by being able to prove someone/thing responsible.

Same way "fully comprehensive" car insurance doesn't just pay out from it' own pocket all the time, it sends the bill to the other party if it thinks they're at fault.

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

Maybe this lawsuit is frivolous but I think there is a genuine point under there somewhere.

What fitnessischeating said. I was driving to a race in Germany at the weekend and was passed (whilst I was doing 100 or so mph) by a Porsche 911 GT3 as if I was standing still. Nothing about the speed given the conditions (clear, dry, smooth 3-lane road and other drivers used to the autobahn) seemed like it was dangerous but obviously it doesn't need much to cause the driver to lose control. That said, some of the driving at significantly lower speed around the roads near the circuit by boy racers seemed far less safe.

Why (assuming she feels she has to sue someone) is the daughter not suing the driver/his estate?

Wasn't the model of Porsche in question known to have stability problems?

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

There's almost no car sold today that can't exceed the speed limit in the UK. Manufacturers would have to have speed limiters installed that couldn't be bypassed. It'd be costly and expensive as it would be specific to each country. Also, perhaps it'd need to be GPS and live data enabled to ensure you did the speed limit on each road. It would also cause issues with overtaking which, in turn would lead to more accidents as people pull out to overtake a lorry doing 50mph on a single lane a-road but get limited at 60mph or perhaps the car gets a "push to pass" button where they get a speed boost?

And all that is after about 30 seconds thinking. Totally unworkable.

His daughter is quite young I belive, talked into it?
Only one winner as other have typed

There's more details here:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/29/daughter-of-actor-paul-walker-sues-porsche-for-fathers-wrongful-death

I don't think they are saying that anyone other than the driver caused the crash, but they are arguing that Paul Walker would have survived if the design did not have significant flaws.

There's some (grim) details in the guardian link

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

The Nissan Skyline does something similar to this IIRC - it won't let you engage race mode without the GPS detecting it's on a track.

Won't be long before we're all being auto-driven at the speed limit anyway.

Unworkable - nonsense. There are existing rules limiting the size of motorbikes that can be ridden under a restricted licence.

Different countries drive on different sides of the road - that seems to be manageable for car manufacturers.

Legislation could be drafted with a 10/15/20 year implementation phase. No more cars bigger than x engine size, capacity, whatever it takes to help prevent pointless deaths from speeding on public roads.

And if you can't pass another vehicle without breaking the speed limit perhaps you should wait for some dual carriageway or until you have a safe passing distance ? Just an idea. But yes, another 10mph more than the limit would be sensible. I am not currently drafting the legislation myself, you understand.

they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire

I read it a little differently to others.

They are not complaining about the speeds the car can do.
They are not complaining about the safety aids on the car being appropriate to the speeds it can do. That would take F1 style cockpit.
They are not saying the driver didn't drive like a dick.

What they are saying is that the cars seatbelt pre-tensioner system which is fitted to 99% of new cars worked in such a way that it cracked his ribs & pelvis (Understandable in an accident situation and that it is an explosive device which pulls the occupant back into the seat in crash situation). However they also argue that in doing so it meant that Walker couldn't escape the car when it subsequently set on fire.

So do we know the answers to

1) Did the seatbelt pre tensioner cause the injuries or did the 96mph crash cause the injuries
2) Did the seat belt pretensioner restrict walker from exiting the car to escape
3) Was walker injured by the accident and therefore would have been unable to escape anyhow.

If you know the answers to all of those then you probably have a right to say if this is a waste of time. Otherwise, tbh your just giving snide comments on a guys tragic death

A car doesn't "do" 94mph, it gets driven to 94mph. It's like blaming a kitchen knife used in a stabbing. Brainless stupid shit.

No, I am saying that they shouldn't make cars that can do much more than the speed limit in the country in which it is sold (for the pedants), I have never understood why that isn't illegal.

The point being that...

was travelling at 94mph (151kph) in a 45mph zone when it hit a lamp post.

ANY car can exceed 45mph, super or otherwise, and most cars could be doing 90+.

It was entirely possible to be driving that car within the speed limit, and safely, the fact the car was [i]capable[/i] of exceeding the speed limit is entirely irrelevant as that's no different to any other car.

Even if we followed your suggestion of not selling or limiting cars to the (maximum?) speed limit of the country in which they are sold then it still would have been possible to be doing ~70mph in that 45 zone.

You could even crash into a lampost under the speed limit and kill someone!

If you're arguing for something more integrated like GPS limitation of speed based on location/zoning then that's a different discussion entirely and one for government and local legislation.

To some degree I do agree with you about the absurdity of the way we trudle around in cars that can massively exceed the speed limit, and have acceleration capabilities that would have been only found on the race track 30-40 years ago, and then use them for pootling around cities at a 12mph average, but I think that's a discussion for another thread and trying to sue Porsche for making a car that is capable of doing that is just bonkers.

If we want to start making changes to the capabilities of cars ont he road that will start at the legislation level and requires government, you can't put that on the car makers (at this stage), and you still need a hefty dose of personal responsibility regardless of the capability of the vehicle.

No more cars bigger than x engine size, capacity, whatever it takes to help prevent pointless deaths from speeding on public roads.

I sincerely hope you don't work in road safety research.

It seems very frivolous to me, the car hit a large immobile object at 90+ MPH, they died because they were driving far too quickly on a road not suitable - I.E. not a highway/motorway where traffic flow is separated and 'road furniture' not behind crash barriers.

The Car itself is both very safe it's got a carbon fibre monocoque like a Le Man style racer or F1 car so it can sustain huge impacts, far more than most cars and has tonnes of grip, far more than 99% of the cars on the road today, you can drive around corners faster and in more control than most cars, but it's also unsafe at the same time, the engine it hugely powerful, the clutch like an on/off switch and it's doesn't have stability control because that's what buyers wanted - a barely contained racer, but that means it can overcome it's huge grip levels easily.

Did you even read my post?

It seems very frivolous to me, the car hit a large immobile object at 90+ MPH, [b]they died because they were driving far too quickly[/b] on a road not suitable - I.E. not a highway/motorway where traffic flow is separated and 'road furniture' not behind crash barriers

How do you know this is why he died

The Porsche Carrera GT has a reputation as a tricky car for on the limits driving. Anyone remember [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2077344/Lewis-Hamiltons-father-crashes-Porsche.html ]Lewis Hamiton's father crashing[/url] one? However as often it is the person at the wheel that was at fault. If Paul Walker's driver wasn't driving in the manner that they were they would both probably be alive now. It's wasn't a car issue but people often need "someone to blame" in these circumstances.

If you know the answers to all of those then you probably have a right to say if this is a waste of time. Otherwise, tbh your just giving snide comments on a guys tragic death

Is this your first time on [s]the internet[/s] Earth?

If you read the article, they are saying that the safety elements weren't sufficient for a car that can do whatever ridiculous and pointless speed a porshe can do, should have had better safety elements. (they contend that his injuries were caused by the seatbelt thus he couldn't escape the fire)
I think they have a point.

Shall we mention the nine year old tyres before we get too far into this thread?

If you know the answers to all of those then you probably have a right to say if this is a waste of time. Otherwise, tbh your just giving snide comments on a guys tragic death

I think you've accurately surmised what this legal action is about, but regardless of what the pre-tensioner did or didn't do, the whole issue is a still a massively depressing reflection on the litigious US of A. Who's to say or indeed know how serious his injuries could have been had the seatbelt not pre-tensioned? Will that be the counter-claim by Porsche?

I said "helps prevent" not eliminates entirely. Loads of things contribute to road deaths. Speed is just one of them, and one that to be could be limited with more success if there was the will.

But in a world that allows the sale of guns to private individuals and cigarettes to anybody I appreciate I am dreaming.

Maybe I should post some graphic picture of dead children killed by speeding cars on Facebook, and the world might start caring ?

TheLittlestHobo - Member

[b]Did you even read my post?[/b]

It seems very frivolous to me, the car hit a large immobile object at 90+ MPH, they died because they were driving far too quickly on a road not suitable - I.E. not a highway/motorway where traffic flow is separated and 'road furniture' not behind crash barriers

How do you know this is why he died

Not in great detail, but then I wasn't responding to you directly either - how do I know that how he died? I watched the news reports which gave the official report to the cause of the accident and death.

The driver lost control and hit a lamppost at a little over 90mph - the balance of probability is that he didn't aim at it and accelerate but slid into it after losing control, so I can safely assume that the speed that he was traveling at when he lost control was higher.

Call it death my misadventure or accident, but I believe they're dead because of the actions of the driver, not because Porsche built an unsafe car, because it's not, it's a very hard car to drive at it's limits which you would have to be very stupid to do on a public road.

Fast & Furious 7 wasn't the same without him.

Fast & Furious 7 wasn't the same without him.

Stay strong bro.

[img] [/img]

But is isn't against the law, or un-needed for a plane to go at that speed. Private cars on public roads don't need to go as fast as they are capable of going.

I own a car, a small motorbike, and several bicycles. I don't break the speed limit in any of them.

The Carrera GT is well known for being a car which will bite you in the ass if you try and push it too far.
None of this is really relevant when you consider that the car was doing double the speed limit (not necessarily dangerous in itself) and lost control hitting a lamppost.
The outcome would have likely been the same as if they were driving a London Taxi.

Fast & Furious 7 wasn't the same without him.

Yep, was a bit lack lustre. Nice sentimental montage at the end though....

stilltortoise fair point. However I think if you read the report again they are insinuating that

1) the pretensioner either caused sufficient damage to him in the accident to make him unable to get out

or

2) THE PRETENSIONER POSSIBLY TIGHTENED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IF HE POSSIBLY SURVIVED THE CRASH (More than likely as some have testified on here that the car is filled with carbon fibre this & that safety aids)HE COULDNT UNDO THE SEATBELT.

1) is a hard one to make a judgement on.
2) the guy was basically strapped to his seat and cooked alive.

There are other safety aids on cars that do similar jobs. Most cars lock their doors above certain speeds these days. They are designed to spring open in the even of a crash so that the occupants can get out. Say you were in a 10mph crash where it caused an electrical fire but the doors malfunctioned and wouldn't open. Would you be making the same comments about a family that cooked alive from a simple accident?

This lawsuit has little to do with the speed of the accident unless it is proven by Porsche that he didn't survive the initial impact. If he did but couldn't get out due to malfunction, Porsche are in trouble

tonyg2003 - Member

The Porsche Carrera GT has a reputation as a tricky car for on the limits driving. Anyone remember Lewis Hamiton's father crashing one? However as often it is the person at the wheel that was at fault. If Paul Walker's driver wasn't driving in the manner that they were they would both probably be alive now. It's wasn't a car issue but people often need "someone to blame" in these circumstances.

Absolutely, it was designed to be a bit of a beast because that's what buyers wanted - flat plane V10 which will spin up like lightening, carbon clutch which is pretty savage which were both used to keep the centre of gravity as low as possible which means more grip, but Porsche were very clear about all this, it was a car that needs a nice wide race track with nothing coming the other way and Armco to stop you hitting something solid.

I actually drove one once, for about 10 mins around someone's driveway I don't think I got over 10mph-15mph but the savagery of the thing was clear.

whatever it takes to help prevent pointless deaths from speeding on public roads.

Have someone walk in front with a gaslight?

This lawsuit has little to do with the speed of the accident unless it is proven by Porsche that he didn't survive the initial impact. If he did but couldn't get out due to malfunction, Porsche are in trouble

Interestingly that's not how I interpreted it. I thought the claim was that his injuries - allegedly caused by the seatbelt - prevented him getting out.

Sad as any road death is, there's an argument that if you want to drive like you're on a race track, make sure you've got a fire extinguisher on board, a knife to cut the (faulty) seatbelt and a safety crew on standby to rescue you.

Our litigious World is one of the top 5 things I hate about modern life.

Even if he was alive post-crash, as they are suggesting, they will have a tougher time proving he was sufficiently conscious and in a position (with crushed ribs and pelvis) to extricate himself from the seatbelt and the car in the brief period between crash and fire.

There were other aspects to the lawsuit as well regarding stability control systems etc.

The seatbelt side of it is going to be a hard one to argue as the pre-tensioner is there to prevent the occupant being ejected, and to allow the seatbelt to do its job, not having it would be much worse.

The bit about not being able to escape is unclear as I've not seen any indication that anyone knows he was conscious enough, or capable enough to *try* and release his seatabelt, or if anyone else did, has anyone seen any report int hat regard?

If the seatbelt wouldn't release then that's an issue in it's own right, but so far I've not seen it stated that it wouldn't release, just some speculation that it *caused* injury, which is where I think this is bonkers because the injury was caused by crashing into a lampost at high speed, and the seatbelt is *designed* to pre-tension and hold the occupant in place, the alternative being ejection, or sliding under/over the belt and being injured further.

But I'm now getting into assumptions and speculation, something I try very hard not to do as I much prefer to wait until I have all the facts, so I'm not going to say any more on that aspect of it.

I hope his family can find some peace, sadly I think this lawsuit will do nothing but extend their anguish.

I don't see the point in this.

The lawsuit can't bring him back.

The family must surely we very well off and not in desperate need for cash.

The crash was ultimately caused by the driver losing control and I think it is safe to say PW wasnt there against his will nor protesting at the speed.

It's very sad and nothing can change the outcome. If they had been travelling along at the speed limit and the car exploded or accelerated by itself into a wall then I could see the desire to sue but in this case i don't get it. He loved cars, and had quite a few Porsches, and I am not sure he would feel the need to sue if he had a say. But maybe the family need someone to blame and blaming the driver is too too close to blaming PW himself so Porsche is the next target.

Hels - IMHO limiting all cars to 70mph (at the extreme) will have virtually no effect on road safety.

The vast majority of accidents occur in urban areas, and only about 6% of road deaths are on motorways.

It is my FIRM belief (admittedly i have actual evidence) that it is MUCH more dangerous for the driver, passengers, and general public to do 60mph in an urban area than 100 mph on a motorway. this is reflected in the autobahn safety stats

A much greater effect on road safety would be to have a much stronger enforcement of the reckless/dangerous/driving without due care an attention laws wee already have, however these are difficult to police, and to prosecute, whereas a speed camera is easy.

The vast majority of death and serious injury accidents happen on rural roads - but your point is absolutely right. The danger is not speed itself, but speed inappropriate to the road conditions, normally coupled with inattention or poor skills.

Limiting cars to 70 would not save a significant number of lives (and in fact would mean the nutters on my local roads putting themselves and others in even greater danger as they take twice as long to complete their dodgy overtakes).

stilltortoise - again I see your point. I was alluding to your point when I said I was reading it one of 2 ways.

The pretensioner system is pretty brutal. It is conceivable it would cause injuries like cracked ribs or pelvis, however in normal circumstances I would accept that over a relatively loose belt allowing me to be flung forward and all that entails.

Its all down to lawyers and experts to discuss now. I was just trying to highlight that it may have been a little more than fact a fast car crashing into a lamp post that this was about.

The point is taken on rural roads being the most dangerous.

This is worth a read...
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

Whilst it is statistics can be interprited in many different ways by different people, to suit different arguments... my interpretation from this is that restricting all cars to 70, will effect:

Approximately 45% of drivers on motorways & dual carriageways in an area that is responsible for ~6% of fatalities

whilst having effecting only a maximum of 1% of rural areas, responsible for ~54%
and having virtually no effect on urban areas, responsible for 40%

if you took into account the "speed" is usually only a contributory factor in accidents, and not paying attention, driving too close, etc are also contributory factors that wont lessen with lower speeds, and i think that this view point is valid.

For what its worth, i rarely speed, and am ROSPA gold qualified.

Different countries drive on different sides of the road - that seems to be manageable for car manufacturers.

Except there are only TWO variants of that.

There are existing rules limiting the size of motorbikes that can be ridden under a restricted licence.

That's not limiting the motorbikes though unless I didn't understand this. It's just limiting who can drive the more powerful ones. Given at 16 the AM license allows riding scooters that can exceed urban speed limits by quite a large margin, this isn't a useful analogy.

I am not currently drafting the legislation myself, you understand.

I do. I also hope you understand that I'm pointing out that it's not as simple as you seem to think.

If you set the speed limit to 70 you would reduce some accidents on the motorways but also reduce the number on A roads (Cat and Fiddle anyone ?)

As the limit is 70, how would limiting the cars to this effect anyone anyway as we are all law abiding people who never go above that speed ?

It they loose then every car manufacturer will have to change its seat belt design for those extremely rare instances when seat belt tension stops somebody escaping. Now seriously, how many times have you heard of it happening? Weigh that up against the number of lives they have saved as they are designed today.

The family might get somebody/thing else to blame but ultimately the driver was clearly not in control and I suspect the passenger was largely in agreement with this. woop woop. they might get some money.

complete farce. very worthy of internet debate on a forum.

Legislation could be drafted with a 10/15/20 year implementation phase. No more cars bigger than x engine size, capacity, whatever it takes to help prevent pointless deaths from speeding on public roads

Late to the party here but the above is impossible until we get autonomous vehicles, after all 40mph on a motorway can kill people if it is inappropriate due to conditions at the time. Also, how would you manage it when travelling abroad? I drive from Germany with unrestricted autobahns to the UK, my car is legal in Germany and can do 186mph flat out for example, what stops it doing that on a UK road? Alternatively, i travel the other direction and can only do 70mph on an autobahn, I now become a hazard to the faster moving traffic!

[quote=TheLittlestHobo ]The pretensioner system is pretty brutal. It is conceivable it would cause injuries like cracked ribs or pelvis, however in normal circumstances I would accept that over a relatively loose belt allowing me to be flung forward and all that entails.
Its all down to lawyers and experts to discuss now. I was just trying to highlight that it may have been a little more than fact a fast car crashing into a lamp post that this was about.

Unlike most on this thread you do at least get the point, though I disagree with your take on it. It will certainly be an interesting argument that the pre-tensioner is to blame when they're certainly not going to be able to prove (even on balance of probabilities) that the outcome wouldn't have been worse without it - not when I'm sure there has been a [b]lot[/b] of research proving their effectiveness. It is accepted that performing CPR is likely to crack ribs, but that is better than not doing CPR when it is needed.

I'm also not convinced that Porsche has any need to prove that he didn't survive the initial crash or that the safety systems didn't prevent him getting out. There's a fundamental contradiction there to start with - because if there is even reasonable doubt about survival of the initial crash then it is highly likely that without those safety systems he would have been in no position to attempt to escape. More fundamentally it is up to the plaintiff to do the proving in a situation like this where the accepted position until proven otherwise is that safety systems in cars do enhance survival prospects.

Ultimately though that's just my opinion, and yours is equally valid - doubtless it will be a lawyer fest with them being the only ones likely to gain from it. Though in the context of legal actions Porsche's owners are facing this is extremely small beer, and I'm almost tempted to think they'll welcome the distraction! As suggested above, us lot might as well argue over it, because there's not much respect being shown by anybody else here.

[quote=eddiebaby ]Sounds like they hope to cash in on the current anti-VAG feeling at the moment. The driver's cfamily lost last year against Porsche.

Where are you seeing that? Having done a bit more reading I'm not finding anything to suggest that lawsuit isn't still active - simply lawyers in that stating their positions.

Dunno, but the next time I fall off my Inbred and smash my elbow up, I'm suing Brant.

This is pretty speculative but there's a news report online that "Officials said the 40-year-old actor was found in a “pugilistic stance” with right wrist and left arm fractures, indicating he had braced for impact. The report also said Walker sustained jaw, collarbone, rib and pelvic fractures and had “scant soot” in his trachea, suggesting he at least partially inhaled some of the smoke" which from my uninformed point of view is suggestive that he was unconscious from the crash.

[url= http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/paul-walker-autopsy-report-reveals-actor-horrific-final-moments-article-1.1565527 ]Sauce[/url]

What they are saying is that the top seat belt mounting was attached somewhere near the engine and the bottom one was on the floor, the impact was such that the mountain points moved in relation to each other and forced him down in the car breaking his pelvis etc and rendering him unable to move even if he could have undone the belt.

Who would have thought it, a Porsche that has tail happy handling characteristics that end badly 👿 Someone really should show them a proper mid mounted super car.

Have a look at the interior pics on the net and it is clear the top seatbelt mount is behind the seat attached to the 'engine bay'. So if that area did shear, move etc. you might be pinned in. It's possible they might have a case.

[img] [/img]

Interesting points guys. This is more the kind of issues i was hinting at than, silly boy crashes car then blames car for crash.

aracer - yep i see where your coming from. I think rockhopper may be closer to the truth with his movement of the engine etc. A legal minefield but as others have said only the lawyers are gonna win

How anyone would have been expected to still be alive after being pulled from this is beyond me.
[img] ?enlarged[/img]

I don't see the point in this.

The lawsuit can't bring him back.

The family must surely we very well off and not in desperate need for cash.

The crash was ultimately caused by the driver losing control and I think it is safe to say PW wasnt there against his will nor protesting at the speed.

I'm sure the official line will be they are bringing the action so no others have to run the risk of the pre-tensioner...

I'd say to anyone wondering whether the seatbelt mounting points were an issue. That car was a complete wreck and nobody was walking away from it no matter seatbelts or not.

My mercedes actually goes through a procedure every time i start it up of checking how fat i am.......

Not joking, it tightens up to a snug fit, then loosens off ever so slightly. After that i can move as normal but i guess its setting something in the case of a crash so it knows how to reel me in.

Manfacturers are being shown in a bad light lately but they do a lot of clever stuff as well. My vans detect wind from the side and use the esp/abs system to counter the effect so van drivers dont get so fatigued. If they put the wipers on the vehicles automatically move the pads a few mm closer to the discs to skim the 'asumed' water off the disc so there isnt the initial pad/water/disc situation. They have sensors which detect your alertness and warn you if your driving style has changed. I thought it was time dependent but no, 30mins into a tired journey, its pinging a warning. Its linked to the movements in the steering wheel.

All standard (No extra cost) etc. There is a lot of good in new vehicles these days as well as bad. I have driven a few of the electric offerings and cant wait for it to become properly viable.

It is circular logic to say that speed wasn't a factor in accidents on urban areas - how many people routinely drive over 60mph in towns ? I think that adds support to my concept. You just don't need a car that can drive at 150mph.

And as for overtaking slowly being more dangerous, the real way to mitigate that risk isn't to overtake more quickly, it is to wait patiently until you can overtake safely, or just chill and accept that getting there alive is better than getting there dead on time.

And as for overtaking slowly being more dangerous, the real way to mitigate that risk isn't to overtake more quickly, it is to wait patiently until you can overtake safely, or just chill and accept that getting there alive is better than getting there dead on time.

I read this and picture the "slowvertaking" that speed-limited lorries do on dual carriageways and motorways the length and breadth of the UK. It'd be interesting to model what happens if all vehicles are limited to the same speed. I remember being quite impressed with how the traffic flowed better when the M42 introduced variable speed limits. There may be mileage (pun intended) in both those approaches, but as many have written above, it will only help prevent a relatively small percentage of accidents.