fd3s_rx7

iTrader: (13)

Actually he doesn't even own the car. His parents finance the car for him and they are also making the payments for him.

I mean, he's an idiot because I remember him telling me he has aftermarket Greddy Turbos and was fully modify by HKS. When the car is bone stock with stock turbos.

He's also an idiot for saying that no one wants to race him. He would ask people to race him, and they would turn him down...

At least I know I did my part for telling him to be extra careful with the car. Know when to push the car and when not to. The car isn't like the parents Camry.
Anyways I have a friend that is best friend of his girlfriend. I would find out shortly what would happen to him or what's going on.

turbojeff

iTrader: (30)

30 mph = 44ft/sec

60 mph = 88ft/sec

90 mph = 132ft/sec

So say your stopped waiting to turn left, a car passes going the opposite way, you see a clearing, you go. This takes you some time to react, for the car to get moving, for you to cross the lanes.

If they had been going 40mph and the turn took her 5 seconds (including reaction time) they would have been 293 ft down the road.

Given the same turn but they were travelling 90mph they would have been 660 ft down the road. Now I don't know about you guys but 660ft is quite a ways down the street.

Maybe if the driver knew she had to beat a car going 90mph she would have made a different choice. If she was so easy to see why didn't the Mazda driver slow down sooner? How many seconds does it take to stop from 90mph? He probably was watching the car he was racing.

You can argue about the 5 sec for a turn. I figure it can be less than 3 sec any possible way. Figure even on a dragstrip a Cavalier would probably struggle to get better than a 2.5-3 sec 60' time (distance across intersection), it gets worse if your trying to complete a 90 degree turn in your '60 time...

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Yes, it's stupid for them to have been racing during rush hour. And it's stupid to race on the streets. And the lady's death is very saddening. But c'mon... read this:
Lady musta been blind. I don't care WHAT your reaction time is, there were (reportedly) no turns, curves etc. If this were any other situation, the cop would not be cracking down on them so bad, because it's clear as day that the lady failed to yield to oncoming and faster traffic. She made an improper turn.

I've been involved in a somewhat similar collision, where a lady failed to give a signal, and tried to move from the shoulder of a HIGHWAY, at about 35mph, onto the left lane, where I was doin about 85 mph (this was YEARS ago). I slammed into her doing prob a solid 55 mph. No ABS, no airbags, nada. She claimed I was speeding. Once the cop realized the situation (no turn signal, failing to yield to faster traffic, improper lane change, blah blah) he said it was her fault. She insisted I was speeding. He said IT DIDN'T MATTER. There's no way of ascertaining my speed, and either way, I have the right of way.

These kids had the right of way (to drive, NOT race). But they had the right of way nonetheless. If you make a stupid turn in front of them, you're putting your life in danger. Unfortunately, in this case, this woman's mistake cost her her life...

So, would I charge these kids w/ racing, and come down on them hard for it? HELL YEA. Would I charge them w/ manslaughter (if my conclusions are correct, ie those are the facts of the case), hell no. Not their fault. They're not at fault in my book - not for the accident.

BLKTOPTRVL

man·slaugh·ter (măn'slô'tər)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

Their actions caused the death... No two ways about it.



Book 'em Dano.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

^^^^^^^**** that if you hit some lady that pulled out and she died you wouldn't want to go to jail. Besides even if they were going 45 she could have died anyways, there is no way you can say that her death was entirely her fault. I think it was more of a 50/50 at fault here. They shouldn't be racing/ She shouldn't have pulled out. Should they make her pay for the damage on his car? She had no intent to **** up his car but she did, same difference Car slaughter. Whatever, it's unfortunate but seriously put yourself in their shoes and you wouldn't want some guy saying you murdered some lady.

Arkade

first off, these kids are f*cking stupid for racing in broad day light period, second on a friday, and third a mazda6, i mean wtf... just playing... but really, i still don't blame them ENTIRELY for this, yes they are idiots, yes they were doing probably double the speed limit, but i do konw one thing for sure, when i am turning left out of or into a turn lane or on any fast moving street i would rather hesitate and wait for a car that looks like it is coming in too fast than take my chances. don't get me wrong, you have to remember the end of this lady's life happened, all of her things to do, her great victories and defeats, everything of who she was no longer exists. i do feel for the family but i have seen too many people pull out in front of fast moving traffic, cut off big rigs at stop lights and so forth to believe that she was completely innocent. it sucks from every point of view

Bob_The_Normal

You guys that are starting to shift more blame to the lady.... you're forgetting that, yes, she was PROBABLY that stupid bitch that cut you off in traffic because she is clueless and has no place behind the wheel of a car.

But at the same time, I've never hit those people... they cut me off, merge into me, etc etc.

The reason I'm not hitting them is because I am always very aware of my real-time speed. I drove without a speedometer in my car for a long time... and it's actually a good thing to do, the speedometer gets too much attention from people. Don't worry about the little stick pointing at a number... worry about what is going on, keep a good feeling of how fast you are moving compared to other things around you, know your braking distances. We drive FCs... we can out-brake 90% of the **** out there on the road people, just remember the guy behind you isn't driving one... ride the brake if you have to, to warn the person behind you... but do NOT RIDE IT ALL THE TIME. (Or I'll come break your legs.)

In fact I have a good example... just today on my way to work, some stupid bitch in a van pulled out (making a left turn just like this lady) into the middle of my lane where I was going about 50mph (40 zone) I was down the road a bit. Still, at the speed I was going I would have hit them if I wasn't paying attention enough to slow down. Instead of slowing down a lot though, I noticed the lane next to me was open, the van was slowly getting out of my lane... so I sped up. I slipped right past that van the second she got clear, maybe an inch or two from hitting.

Why? Because that stupid bitch was scared shitless seeing my car come flying at her instead of braking for her dumb ***, that tried to make a left turn into a lane that was bumper to bumper and had no place for her to go. Maybe she'll think twice about doing it again since she probably thought if she didn't get out of the way this time I would have hit her.

And if she hadn't gotten clear I'd have just moved around her with the other lane... I wouldn't risk my car on some idiot like that, but I know where it is on the road very well and I use it accordingly.

One of my "hobbies" you might say is scaring those drivers that drift into your lane... who knows why the hell they do this... but you're passing them and for some reason they "magnetize" into you?? Well, I actually move towards them when they're doing it. You think they aren't paying attention but they almost ALWAYS notice when your car is about an inch or two from their door and closing.

Anyhow, my point here... is that the two speeding were more at fault. If you're going to split it up, I'd say charge them all. Charge the dead lady with whatever laws she broke, and the cost of the cars.. since legally she is at fault. And then charge the guy with exceeding the speed limit by unbelievable amounts for that zone, AND manslaughter.

The RX-7 driver on the other hand... I'm not really sure, is the reason he wasn't involved because he actually PAID ATTENTION and slowed down to miss the crash?? I think it's very possible... in which case, I really don't see why he should be charged with anything.

--Gary

DrKillJoY

- A fellow passive agressive -

JamesBong

One thing you guys are forgetting is that, just because the road is wide and strait, dosn't mean it's flat. As Turbojeff said, they could have been more than 660ft away (1/8 mi) when she pulled out. That could have been enough to be over a rise and out of sight. Don't pass judgment when you don't know the facts. Any way you look at it, the street racers took a mother from a family, and a wife from a husband.

Montego

iTrader: (1)

I'm not putting the blame on her. I just said that she played a part in it.

Usually it's a sum of mistakes that equals having a car accident. Not as common is only one mistake by only one party.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

I say no man slaughter, but make sure he (the mazda6 driver) Get his license taken away for a long time. I don't think he should be punished for killing the lady, I'm sure that was never his intention or his goal in life. Yea yea manslaughter means no intent, so what. If you accidently dropped your hammer of a 5 foot building and killed a man would you want to go to jail. Accidents happen, people are too quick to throw people in jail. Sue happy society makes me sick too. I'm sure that kid feels TERRIBLE for what happened, you think he's really going to street race EVER again? I doubt it. He doesn't need jail time to think about it. My guess is if they did send him to jail he sit there and feel more and more like **** until he killed himself. That makes two deaths. Best thing for the kid is to not drive, and try to move on.

GUITARJUNKIE28

well said.

BLKTOPTRVL

Re: your example of a hammer falling... There is a difference between an 'accident' where a casual hammer falls off maybe a ten foot ladder, and the case where a hammer is used on a tall building. I am sure that in the latter case, the hammer is REQUIRED TO BE ON A LANYARD and the area under is REQUIRED to be cordoned off. If the workman decides not to bother because he thinks the law is a pain and slows down his work, then that is manslaughter to me. If that hammer was on a lanyard and the lanyard breaks and someone gets killed, that is an accident.

I wouldn't want anyone to ever say that I murdered someone. But at that same time, if I was doing something stupid and as a DIRECT RESULT someone got killed, then I guess it doesn't matter what I would think. What matters is the law, and the law says the woman was killed due to the negligence of those racing.

Try to downplay it if you like, but it is not as if they just happened to be driving down the road and lost their brakes and killed her. They were knowingly disregarding the law and they KILLED someone.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Nice example. But a bit incomplete. Lets say I'm trying to cut costs, so I don't put the hammer on a lanyard. I drop it, and it falls...where a lady is passing beneath, and she dies instantly. Problem: she's tresspassing in a construction zone, cornered and sealed off, not open to the public, and allowed only for authorized construction personell w/ hardhats on at all times. NOW, you have a complete scenario. The lady went into an area she wasn't allowed in. She broke the rules, and transgressed the boundaries. Now the situation is a bit more complex.

BOTH parties are guilty, but can you say party A (construction engineer) was directly responsible and hence guilty for the death of party B (the woman)? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You'd fine the construction engineer for improper procedure, and fine the lady (if she was still alive) for tresspassing or entering an unauthorized area, plus doing so w/o correct equipment, etc.

Hopefully now you see our point. Kids shouldn't be racing. They're guilty for that. Lady shouldn't have made the turn. She's guilty for that. Neither can lay blame on the other, because each party is at fault for a part of the situation, and that guilt played a role in their OWN demise.

live2drive15

iTrader: (4)

Well said...........But I don't agree with manslaughter. If he was braking a law, he should be punished for that. But not for the lady dying (notice i didn't say for killing the lady) She died as a result from an accident. Not from the fact that he was braking the law. Even if he was doing 45-50 (the speed limit) there's a good chance she would have died as well. Once it gets past 50 mph it's just a matter of how is she going to die not IF. It's almost guaranteed. A crash at 80 is obviously worse but a crash at 50 is going to be pretty devistating as well. You can't positively say the fact that he was speeding killed the woman. Not to mention he may have hit the brakes so maybe he was doing 65 or 70? when he hit her, that's not much worse than 50.

caliwhitecomet

I myself have been in a similar situation; the kid should be charged with manslaughter. Not too long ago, I was hit front dead center on a left turn by an accord's front left corner and it totalled my front end. The case being that the racers were driving at 85-90mph, they most definetly should be charged. They shouldn't have been racing period. Even if they were racing, they know for a fact, as all of us do, that laws are being broken, that the laws that they break do not merely endanger their own personal well being, but others as well, and therein lies the key. They knew that what they were doing could kill somebody, including themselves, and it did. I on the other hand, do not neglect the fact that she also was at fault, that she SHOULD NOT have been making the turn so irresponsibly to put herself in such a situation. She as well should bear some of the charges of the case, because she too, and as unfortunate as my verb tense may be, knew that what she did could kill someone, and soon enough, she killed herself. These are dangerous machines, and are not to be taken lightly.

BLKTOPTRVL

Good example, but not appropriate to the point I was making...

If I were to go with your example, the lady who got killed would have to have been operating her car on a private race track where she would - as you have pointed out - share responsibility.

I was speaking of a OPEN, PUBLIC, and IN-USE building that was being worked on. Where the workman did not take precautions and was therefore negligent.

My example is more in line with an OPEN, IN-USE and PUBLIC street. Yours is related to a closed, private property.

JamesBong

Actually, if you really want to use this inane hammer example, it would be more like a couple of kids threw the hammer off the building to see what would happen. The hammer hit a passer by, and KILLED them.

This is not the result of an innocent accident. ("oops, I was accidently racing this guy. I didn't know I was going 90mph on a public road in the middle of the day.")

Some of you are assuming too much. You don't know the visibility conditions or weather the woman driving the car took reasonable precautions for the conditions (ie. posted speed limit). Now if I were to use your logic, I would assume that those of you who are placing any blame on the unfortunate victim, have come too close to killing somone by your own reckless idiotic behavior. I'm sure you placed the blame squarely on them. "Man, I was doing 50 on a 20mph posted turn, and this B*TCH pulled right out in front of me. I had to cross the double yellow to keep from hitting her"

Take responsibility for your own actions, as this kid needs to, and stop placing the blame on the innocent victims.

BLKTOPTRVL

Agreed.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

Not quite. Your lane is your own private space. It cannot be invaded by anyone w/o proper procedure, space, distance, etc. If it is, there are citations for "improper lane change," "failure to use turn signal," "failure to yield" (for faster traffic), "failure to yield" (to those who have the right of way), etc.

James, I don't deny or put on a front. That decribes me to a tee. If I'm in my lane, and the circumstances say it's not safe for you to turn in front of me, you SHOULD NOT turn in front of me. Just because the law says I should be doing 35 doesn't mean that you can play make-belief that I am indeed doing 35 - especially when you can easily tell I'm travelling at a higher rate of speed. Ignoring the consequences doesn't eradicate them. Just cuz the ostritch can't see the oncoming predator (w/ it's head in the sand) doesn't mean the predator's not there. Point being, you have to play based on the cards AS THEY LAY. I'm going fast, you (not you per say, but you understand my point) don't be a dumbass and turn in front of me when it's painfully obvious you don't have enough room or speed to do so. That, on YOUR part, is reckless driving IMO. Speeding (as long as it's under 20), is NOT reckless driving on my part. That's how the law reads.

If the government agreed w/ you, and was going to leave judgement calls up to drivers, they wouldn't have any of the violations I mentioned above, ALL trafflic lights would blink late at night, rather than making you wait when there's obviously no traffic, and you could run a stop sign if it's obvious there are no other cars in the vicinity. Point being, the government recognizes drivers' judgemnts are flawed, and thus have violations set up to repremand flawed judgement. That's just how it is. If I'm coming at you fast, there's no way of hiding the truth: you should use your good judgement and YIELD. Do NOT attempt to turn in front of me. If you do, I hope you have a real good lawyer, cuz the LAW states that if I hit you, it's YOUR fault - one of the RARE incidences where the guy from behind is NOT at fault. I know, cuz I've been there.

You are right, however, that we're speculating about the conditions. Yet I gotta argue (and strongly) that given the facts (no speculation), the road was wide and straight. No corners or hills were mentioned. So call it AS IT IS, vs. speculating about possible hills and what not.

BTW, I'm not trying to get in your face and say you're wrong. By all means, if you can correct me and change my mentality, I'm all for it. So yea, I'm open to other viewpoints

Montego

iTrader: (1)

I'm not going to argue your point of view, because well it's your opinion but... Name one person in here that said it was her fault.

DrKillJoY

Actually several idiots here tried to shift blame to the lady.

FDNewbie

iTrader: (10)

I think we're blaming the lady for being careless/reckless in making a turn when there is oncoming traffic at a high rate of speed. Everyone's also blaming the kids for being dumb and wrong for racing. But it's a culmination of the two faults that lead to her death. You can't single out one party as being responsible.

birdy01

i agree, it coulda been the guys racing that died, the lady jus died cause she got t-boned, i'm sure if the lady t-boned the mazda 6, i'm sure one of them woulda been dead too

DrKillJoY

What I find amazing is that anyone can even attempt to rationalize racing your vehicle on the street.

** NOTE ** I am not saying I haven't or will not engage in this activity in the past or the future, I do accept the liability and fully assume the responsibility for my actions. Many people (as seen in this thread) don't seem to be willing to accpet that responsibility and manage to point fingers in any direction except towards themselves.

That's just sad.