RIP Paul Walker - killed in a CGT's passenger seat

[stephen wilson]

I'm a believer in personal accountability. If you choose to buy a "dangerous" car, without stability controls, that's on you, not the manufacturer.

I don't undeerstand how people get large payouts for on-track accidents of any sort. When you enter any such event, you assume responsibility, even for other driver's boneheaded moves.

[southernstar]

I am confident that there will be litigation and that, amongst other things, the plaintiffs will allege that the car was inherently unsafe for sale/use as a street vehicle; that the two segments of the tub were inadequately constructed; that the fire was due to negligent design/construction; that there was inadequate crush space, etc., etc. I suspect that they will also have little difficulty finding some 'experts' to support these propositions.

Even if the accident reconstruction reports clearly show that the vehicle was driven negligently and at a speed inappropriate for the road it was on, you will likely find a jury in the US that will feel sympathetic for two such nice young men and award millions. Afterall, a US jury awarded $2 million (as I recall) to a women who burned her thighs when she spilled coffee on them while opening the cup between her bare legs.

Why? There was no cautionary note that "cofffee is hot"! (That is why we now have these idiotic reminders on coffee cups). The real reason for the jury's decision, of course, is that MacDonalds has deep pockets and this poor, nice woman (who had great legs, I suspect) had to spend money she could not afford on only partially successful surgery on the disfigurement to those great legs. I am sure that some psychologist testified she is embarrssed to go out in shorts, or short dresses/skirts; that the most outstanding part of her figure was her legs and her sense of self-worth was inextricably bound up with the same. The poor girl was probably suicidal! What is worse, she will no longer be able to attract a 'leg man' - the type of man who dated her in the past. I mean, when Rod Stewart wrote the song 'Hot legs' he may have been thinking of her. Well, somebody has to pay and surely MacDonald's can afford it! Cha Ching!

Does anyone here actually believe that this will not end up in litigation? Does anyone honestly believe that Porsche will not ultimately pay out millions upon millions - likely to settle rather than try such a high profile case, whether or not they were negligent? Does anyone think they will be willing to lose in the court of public opinion, regardless of what may happen at trial?

Brad

[AKnowles]

Originally Posted by stephen wilson

I'm a believer in personal accountability. If you choose to buy a "dangerous" car, without stability controls, that's on you, not the manufacturer.

I don't undeerstand how people get large payouts for on-track accidents of any sort. When you enter any such event, you assume responsibility, even for other driver's boneheaded moves.

+ 1

As tragic as it is, same goes for personal accountability for getting in any car as a passenger. trust is great, but doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your own actions. Meaning, Paul Walker would be alive today if he just said "No thanks".

I remember the controversy and limits when motorcycles were required to not exceed a specific horsepower per CC. Or even the requirement to were a helmet if you ride a motorcycle (I always did and felt anyone that didn't wear a helmet had no right to complain about the injury they received when their head hit the pavement). I don't see ANY difference in this than a high performance car without traction control.

Legislation and limits are not the answer. Personal responsibility is. Most people will not assume responsibility for their own actions. It's somethings else that is the cause, someone else is he cause, etc. For my view, it's simple, from the day you are born it's about choice. You make your choices and accept the responsibility for them.

It is not the manufacture's responsibility as they did not force you to buy it. You made a choice to buy it (whatever it is) and use it. Similar to the the old adage ... "It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

[Nine8Six]

Originally Posted by AKnowles

"It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

People don't kill people, do they?! Doesn't sound natural with our instinct anyway.....

I live in a country where any sort of weapon is highly prohibited and nobody dies mate. 1.4billion and growing healthy

[woodsman]

Taking responsibility means 'suffering' is involved and north americans are taught that 'there are ways around that'- like drugs, for example. Maturity has never been so scarce.

[Nine8Six]

Maturity = no thanks
Common Sense = yes
Experience = yes
Sport cars = Yes!
Race bikes = Yes!
Drugs = old school

Back on topic, I'd be interested to know what's written in little characters on that Dealer's release contract when you sign-off a purchase on a 'performance' street-legal vehicle - such as a CGT. Anybody knows?

[linklaw]

Originally Posted by AKnowles

+ 1

As tragic as it is, same goes for personal accountability for getting in any car as a passenger. trust is great, but doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your own actions. Meaning, Paul Walker would be alive today if he just said "No thanks".

I remember the controversy and limits when motorcycles were required to not exceed a specific horsepower per CC. Or even the requirement to were a helmet if you ride a motorcycle (I always did and felt anyone that didn't wear a helmet had no right to complain about the injury they received when their head hit the pavement). I don't see ANY difference in this than a high performance car without traction control.

Legislation and limits are not the answer. Personal responsibility is. Most people will not assume responsibility for their own actions. It's somethings else that is the cause, someone else is he cause, etc. For my view, it's simple, from the day you are born it's about choice. You make your choices and accept the responsibility for them.

It is not the manufacture's responsibility as they did not force you to buy it. You made a choice to buy it (whatever it is) and use it. Similar to the the old adage ... "It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

Yeah, you're probably right. When you get paralyzed in an accident caused by a drunk driver, you should accept personal responsibility and realize that you chose to drive on that street at that time and if you would have taken a different route you would not have been injured. Too bad for you. Or when you are electrocuted by a defective toaster you should accept the responsibility that it was your decision to have toast with your eggs and just live with the consequences. Or when you are poisoned by tainted chicken, just accept the responsibility and realize you should have eaten beef. I guess in your perfect world it would always be the fault of the person who is injured or killed. After all, they could have made a different decision. I'm just glad I don't live in your world.

[woodsman]

Ethics, chance and the law- hmmn. We're gett'in down to it now.

[Topless]

Originally Posted by linklaw

Yeah, you're probably right. When you get paralyzed in an accident caused by a drunk driver, you should accept personal responsibility and realize that you chose to drive on that street at that time and if you would have taken a different route you would not have been injured. Too bad for you. Or when you are electrocuted by a defective toaster you should accept the responsibility that it was your decision to have toast with your eggs and just live with the consequences. Or when you are poisoned by tainted chicken, just accept the responsibility and realize you should have eaten beef. I guess in your perfect world it would always be the fault of the person who is injured or killed. After all, they could have made a different decision. I'm just glad I don't live in your world.

I realize that this stuff hits pretty close to home for you Link and I am certain that Walker's attorneys will win a significant settlement from both Rodas estate and Porsche. From all the preliminary evidence it looks like they were going roughly 100 mph over the speed limit on that street. Any time you are 100 over and you hit a fixed object, bad things happen. I suspect that this car did not get there by itself and it could have easily been any high performance sports car. Someone had to pull the trigger and at this point it looks like Rodas.

[Jamesp]

You right wing nutcase lunatics drive me crazy!!! Personal responsibility, Bah! Dont you get it? So exactly who put a parking lot NEAR A TREE!!!! Who sold concrete to make a surface that was easy to go fast on IN A PARKING LOT!!! Who made the gasoline with the energy in it to propel the car, with NO regard how it might be used?!?!?!?!? MY GOD! THINK OF THE BABY HARP SEALS!!! Who planted the tree? Did they have money? Don't even get me started on the car company, I KNOW they have money. Somebody has to pay , and pay big, right? That's justice, and there isn't any justice until a lawyer gets paid. Oh yeah, and as an aside, Paul Walker is still dead, so is Nelson Mandela, so lets all just move along, nothing to see here...

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

You right wing nutcase lunatics drive me crazy!!! Personal responsibility, Bah! Dont you get it? So exactly who put a parking lot NEAR A TREE!!!! Who sold concrete to make a surface that was easy to go fast on IN A PARKING LOT!!! Who made the gasoline with the energy in it to propel the car, with NO regard how it might be used?!?!?!?!? MY GOD! THINK OF THE BABY HARP SEALS!!! Who planted the tree? Did they have money? Don't even get me started on the car company, I KNOW they have money. Somebody has to pay , and pay big, right? That's justice, and there isn't any justice until a lawyer gets paid. Oh yeah, and as an aside, Paul Walker is still dead, so is Nelson Mandela, so lets all just move along, nothing to see here...

Hmmmm, sounds more like left-wing, nut case, lunatic, guns kill everyone by themselves magically, let's protect everyone from everything with MORE LAWS, big settlements send messages, thinking.....

Maybe leave politics out of this? Is this Obama's fault or the fault of the person driving wreckless?

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Topless

I realize that this stuff hits pretty close to home for you Link and I am certain that Walker's attorneys will win a significant settlement from both Rodas estate and Porsche. From all the preliminary evidence it looks like they were going roughly 100 mph over the speed limit on that street. Any time you are 100 over and you hit a fixed object, bad things happen. I suspect that this car did not get there by itself and it could have easily been any high performance sports car. Someone had to pull the trigger and at this point it looks like Rodas.

I really don't believe that car was going 100 mph at the point of impact. This wasn't a normal car, it was an as close to racing car as you may ever see short of something like the P1. Such a car hitting anything at 100 mph would have disintegrated. People forget that most of that damage was done by the fire after the crash. And indeed the fire left it a rubble but the wheels were still attached to that car and the tub looked to be relatively whole, the occupants still strapped in. I said it from the start, the impact did not kill both of those guys, this was a survivable crash for at least one of the guys. The one who didn't take the brunt of the light pole impact the door side.

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

I really don't believe that car was going 100 mph at the point of impact. This wasn't a normal car, it was an as close to racing car as you may ever see short of something like the P1. Such a car hitting anything at 100 mph would have disintegrated. People forget that most of that damage was done by the fire after the crash. And indeed the fire left it a rubble but the wheels were still attached to that car and the tub looked to be relatively whole, the occupants still strapped in. I said it from the start, the impact did not kill both of those guys, this was a survivable crash for at least one of the guys. The one who didn't take the brunt of the light pole impact the door side.

I don't believe the 100mph thing either. 45 is closer.

At 100+ that car would have continued into those shops!

[Topless]

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

I really don't believe that car was going 100 mph at the point of impact. This wasn't a normal car, it was an as close to racing car as you may ever see short of something like the P1. Such a car hitting anything at 100 mph would have disintegrated. People forget that most of that damage was done by the fire after the crash. And indeed the fire left it a rubble but the wheels were still attached to that car and the tub looked to be relatively whole, the occupants still strapped in. I said it from the start, the impact did not kill both of those guys, this was a survivable crash for at least one of the guys. The one who didn't take the brunt of the light pole impact the door side.

I'm sure we will find out soon enough. A back-of-a-napkin calculation of the forces required to break off the starter motor and hurl it 120' into a second story office window suggests 100mph+ to me... but I could be wrong.

[tanque55]

I certainly don't want anyone telling what I can or can not buy. Porsches fault? Give me a break. You can do as much or more damage with guns, speed boats, wave runners, motorcycles. I'm almost certain that if it was in our price range and available more than half of the guys on this fórum would have the same car in their garage .

[coreseller]

Originally Posted by Topless

I'm sure we will find out soon enough. A back-of-a-napkin calculation of the forces required to break off the starter motor and hurl it 120' into a second story office window suggests 100mph+ to me... but I could be wrong.

I'm in total agreement, 45 mph is completely laughable.

Here's a video of a pair of Carrera GT's screaming around the streets somewhere in Cali, watch how easily they break traction. Imagine how quickly they could bite you in the arse, they would without a doubt be a handful to drive. The sound they put out is indeed intoxicating but watching these two clowns drive them through city traffic like that is pretty poor form.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by Topless

I'm sure we will find out soon enough. A back-of-a-napkin calculation of the forces required to break off the starter motor and hurl it 120' into a second story office window suggests 100mph+ to me... but I could be wrong.

If we were in fact talking about a standard road car you could say that. When you are talking about a full on carbon fiber racing car, all bets are off. The only thing that is designed not to tear apart and not go flying in pieces into the next county is the tub. In that respect the Porsche engineering paid off -- tub in tact, seats still bolted down. Even the wheels were still attached. look at Allan McNish's Le Mans crash into that one corner, he was doing 100 plus, hit the wall and one of the wheels came down into the crowd mere inches from photogs And fans.

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by AKnowles

+ 1

As tragic as it is, same goes for personal accountability for getting in any car as a passenger. trust is great, but doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for your own actions. Meaning, Paul Walker would be alive today if he just said "No thanks".

I remember the controversy and limits when motorcycles were required to not exceed a specific horsepower per CC. Or even the requirement to were a helmet if you ride a motorcycle (I always did and felt anyone that didn't wear a helmet had no right to complain about the injury they received when their head hit the pavement). I don't see ANY difference in this than a high performance car without traction control.

Legislation and limits are not the answer. Personal responsibility is. Most people will not assume responsibility for their own actions. It's somethings else that is the cause, someone else is he cause, etc. For my view, it's simple, from the day you are born it's about choice. You make your choices and accept the responsibility for them.

It is not the manufacture's responsibility as they did not force you to buy it. You made a choice to buy it (whatever it is) and use it. Similar to the the old adage ... "It's not guns that kill people. It's people that kill people."

That's all true, those guys exercised free will in getting into a inherently dangerous car.

But this isn't an analog issue. You're certainly welcomed to put all of the blame on one party but I think that's a little too convenient for Porsche's sake. Everyone knows that high powered sports cars are dangerous, but does everyone know when they are in a yet higher level of danger because of safety compromises made for the sake of profit?

They exercised extremely poor judgment in selling this car as a production road car without taking some life-saving precautions. For starters they knew well ahead of the release that this car was not for novices yet no qualification was needed. They had every reason to believe that this car behaves like so many illegal for the street racing cars, and that sooner or later someone would turn the car into a heap. They recently acknowledged with the GT3 launch in press interviews that safety was prime motivation for moving to electric steering of high performance car, the old school steering fluid is highly flamable in the event of crash a simple spark could turn it into fireball. Yet they still chose to have the CGT fuel tank that close to the drivers, and still chose not to add some flavor of stability management or recalibration of the engine/throttle to make it more docile in green hands. This is a recipe for an accident that is survivable but the occupant(s) still get burned to death.

Did Paul Walker know he could be burned alive because of the peculiar crash-worthiness of this car? We'll never know.

[papasmurf]

people purchase these cars for attention and to some level, the inherent danger in driving them. They want them to feel as raw and visceral as possible. They will continue to do so whether or not they have the driving skills to pilot such a vehicle or not and I do not think it is up to the government or the car companies to decide if you have the "right stuff" to own an exotic of this level. Truth be told, lots of kit cars built by amateurs are probably just as dangerous and even more poorly engineered and I do not believe anyone is complaining about them. The car could probably use some form of traction/stability control but then it would be another computer guided missle like the GTR. The fact is the CGT is one of a dying breed of true super cars. How many times have people trash talked the F-40 because it is so primal...they do not because that is what makes it so unique.

[jdlmodelt]

So, what about Ferrari, Lamborgini, etc...they all fall into this high HP low car weight category and require an extremely experienced driver to stay out of trouble. Do we need to stop making all exotics? What about the guys hopping up the Nissans and Hondas, etc....It was an unfortunate accident.

I've responded to accidents at much slower speeds with fatalities. **************** happens sometimes. I don't understand why a whole bunch of Porsche owners think Porsche was irresponsible to make and sell this car? I'm quite sure motorcycle accidents are far more prevalent than exotic car accidents. I think people just start to think they are invincible and consequently, take risks that they can't control.

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

That's all true, those guys exercised free will in getting into a inherently dangerous car.

But this isn't an analog issue. You're certainly welcomed to put all of the blame on one party but I think that's a little too convenient for Porsche's sake. Everyone knows that high powered sports cars are dangerous, but does everyone know when they are in a yet higher level of danger because of safety compromises made for the sake of profit?

They exercised extremely poor judgment in selling this car as a production road car without taking some life-saving precautions. For starters they knew well ahead of the release that this car was not for novices yet no qualification was needed. They had every reason to believe that this car behaves like so many illegal for the street racing cars, and that sooner or later someone would turn the car into a heap. They recently acknowledged with the GT3 launch in press interviews that safety was prime motivation for moving to electric steering of high performance car, the old school steering fluid is highly flamable in the event of crash a simple spark could turn it into fireball. Yet they still chose to have the CGT fuel tank that close to the drivers, and still chose not to add some flavor of stability management or recalibration of the engine/throttle to make it more docile in green hands. This is a recipe for an accident that is survivable but the occupant(s) still get burned to death.

Did Paul Walker know he could be burned alive because of the peculiar crash-worthiness of this car? We'll never know.