Toyota Highlander passengers survive 100 mph street racing accident

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
=The fastest I've ever driven was 165 and looking back on it, given... meh... I dunno.... 100-150 feet, I could have safley moved over a car width

165 MPH = 242 feet per second. You expect us to believe you could have: Reacted, moved the car over 10 feet, not lost control of the car, all in just over 1/2 second?

This is the only thing you drive.

hey, I was only giving you guestimates... calling me full of sh!t isn't really justified here...

I guess it took a little longer than that

Ah, now it comes out...

I disclaimed on that from the begining. So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

 

[JulesMaximus]

Damn, they're lucky. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they were wearing their seatbelts?

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

I figure that if the Mustangs were doing 100 and she was doing 60, thats still only 160mph rate of closing- and her vehicle is still going to handle at a rate of 60mph. The fastest I've ever driven was 165 and looking back on it, given... meh... I dunno.... 100-150 feet, I could have safley moved over a car width... and that was still a more of a luxury car than a car that could handle... Before you get on me for the physics of that, all I'm trying to say is that mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this.

You are making a scarecrow out of the vehicle. And I think you are greatly underestimating just how little of reaction time you have when something is flying at you at 100+ MPH. (And in reality even faster because you are driving at it).

It's not the vehicle that's the problem. She could have been driving a Lotus Elise and probably would ended being scrubbed off the pavement. It's not a question of vehicle reaction. It's simply that a normal driver isn't expecting something like that to happen and does not have ample time to react. A person has to be able to react before vehicle physics even come into play.

In this situation I don't think she could even really comprehend what was happening, let alone actually try and do something to avoid it.

The only factor that involves the make of vehicle is that everyone in the Highlander is alive.

good point. I'm going to try to get a map of where the accident happened- I'd like to get some idea of how much warning she had.

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I figure that if the Mustangs were doing 100 and she was doing 60, thats still only 160mph rate of closing- and her vehicle is still going to handle at a rate of 60mph. The fastest I've ever driven was 165 and looking back on it, given... meh... I dunno.... 100-150 feet, I could have safley moved over a car width... and that was still a more of a luxury car than a car that could handle... Before you get on me for the physics of that, all I'm trying to say is that mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this.

You really are an idiot...

I'll try to put this in simple math terms for you.

165 MPH = 871200 feet per hour = 14520 feet per minute = 242 feet per second.

Standard human reaction time used in court cases for accident reconstruction is 1.5 seconds. At 242 feet per second that's 363 feet of the gap that's closed. And that does not even bring into account physics for actually making the change to the movement of the vehicle... Thus, you in mustang = dead.

 

[BMdoobieW]

Originally posted by: Toasthead
wow...

from the title of this thread you made it sound like the toyota was street racing at 100

That's what I thought. Boy was I disappointed.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: acemcmac
I figure that if the Mustangs were doing 100 and she was doing 60, thats still only 160mph rate of closing- and her vehicle is still going to handle at a rate of 60mph. The fastest I've ever driven was 165 and looking back on it, given... meh... I dunno.... 100-150 feet, I could have safley moved over a car width... and that was still a more of a luxury car than a car that could handle... Before you get on me for the physics of that, all I'm trying to say is that mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this.

You really are an idiot...

I'll try to put this in simple math terms for you.

165 MPH = 871200 feet per hour = 14520 feet per minute = 242 feet per second.

Standard human reaction time used in court cases for accident reconstruction is 1.5 seconds. At 242 feet per second that's 363 feet of the gap that's closed. And that does not even bring into account physics for actually making the change to the movement of the vehicle... Thus, you in mustang = dead.

And your slow. Scroll up. :roll:

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

:laugh: so much for being able to have an intellectual debate on a message board. Personal insult, personal insult, personal insult. Where I come from, the need to make personal insults in an argument just reveals how weak your position is. You guys raise a lot of good points, and it's completley fair and simple to disagree that I believe her choice of vehicle may have affected her family's fate and you guys don't. But that doesen't justify all of the trash talk.

On a more mature note :roll:

Apparantly this kind of stuff is a huge problem in Queens.
http://www.queenstribune.com/feature/ANeedToStopTheSpeed.html

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

Yea, you keep owning yourself with your horrible logic.

The bottom line is that she SURVIVED the crash because of the car she drove, and her REACTION TIME is the key factor in her 'not avoiding' the crash (if it was even possible, which you don't know) not the handling of the car... which is good anyway.

You can't show any kind of good reasoning that the same mom (and her 3 kids) would have had a better chance to avoid the collision in a freakin mustang... and those handle like crap anyways.

 

Originally posted by: acemcmac
:laugh: so much for being able to have an intellectual debate on a message board.

Yeah, it's rather tough to do so when the debater I'm conversing with is a complete and total moron.

We're insulting you because you're saying things that are patently not true. Deer slalom? 165 mph lane changes? BULLSH!T.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: NFS4

DUDE, our family fuggin' owns a 2002 Highlander Limited V6. I've racked up over 15,000 miles in the damn thing. I know what it CAN and CAN NOT do. The vehicle has saved my ass on numerous occasions (Electronic brake distribution, stability control and traction control kicking in). The damn thing handles better than my '95 Camry LE and is faster and stops quicker..

Stopping distance for a 1995 Camry is 124 feet, and for a 2002 Highlander it's 131 feet. So the highlander does not stop quicker.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

QFT

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NFS4

DUDE, our family fuggin' owns a 2002 Highlander Limited V6. I've racked up over 15,000 miles in the damn thing. I know what it CAN and CAN NOT do. The vehicle has saved my ass on numerous occasions (Electronic brake distribution, stability control and traction control kicking in). The damn thing handles better than my '95 Camry LE and is faster and stops quicker..

Stopping distance for a 1995 Camry is 124 feet, and for a 2002 Highlander it's 131 feet. So the highlander does not stop quicker.

That's assuming a 95 Camry with brakes in original condition, highly unlikely after 10 years.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Standard human reaction time used in court cases for accident reconstruction is 1.5 seconds. At 242 feet per second that's 363 feet of the gap that's closed. And that does not even bring into account physics for actually making the change to the movement of the vehicle... Thus, you in mustang = dead.

1.5 seconds is WAYYYY slow. You'd have to be 80 years old, on your phone, or half asleep to have reactions that slow.

Last time I almost hit something, it was at night and there was a deer that jumped out in front of me. A massive shot of adrenaline hits me instantly. If it took me 1.5 seconds to react, I would have plowed through the deer.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NFS4

DUDE, our family fuggin' owns a 2002 Highlander Limited V6. I've racked up over 15,000 miles in the damn thing. I know what it CAN and CAN NOT do. The vehicle has saved my ass on numerous occasions (Electronic brake distribution, stability control and traction control kicking in). The damn thing handles better than my '95 Camry LE and is faster and stops quicker..

Stopping distance for a 1995 Camry is 124 feet, and for a 2002 Highlander it's 131 feet. So the highlander does not stop quicker.

That's assuming a 95 Camry with brakes in original condition, highly unlikely after 10 years.

It has more to do with tires than brakes. No car has a problem locking up the wheels at 60 mph. Brakes easily overpower tires.

I have a 1992 Saturn SL2 with 219,000 miles, and if I hit the brakes hard enough the ABS kicks in. The amount of grip is limited by the tires' adhesion to the road. Throw sticky tires on and it will stop quicker. Throw crappy tires on and it will take longer to stop.

 

[HumblePie]

I've driven a corolla for years now and I've avoided accidents where I know that most human beings would have been doomed to be hit just because I was watching the road, have good reaction times, and I know how to handle my car.

But then again, driving on a normal road does NOT require that kind of skills. A normal roadway or highway in America isn't a demolition derby. You can't blame the woman at all for not avoidning that accident. All you can do is thank her lucky stars that she and her family came out of that situation relatively unscathed.

Could someone with a better car, or better set of motor skills, or better preperation and awareness come out of that situation without being hit at all? Maybe, and maybe not. I know I've turned onto a street where 2 people were racing in the WRONG DIRECTION going about 100+ each and I had a split second to react if even that much time. I managed to fish tail around fast enough from the corner and slip right in the middle of them and narrowly avoiding both cars. Even then, I consider what the hell I did one of the luckiest things I've ever done in my life because a fraction of a millimeter in either direction and I would have been toast. You can't expect that to happen nor is it something you can practically practice at to get the ability to do that almost all the time.

However, none of this should have happened at all if those two pricks hadn't been so freaking retarded.



SIDE NOTE Also acmec, Mustangs don't turn for crap. I'll take my RX8 for making hairpin turns over any mustang any day of the week.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

Yea, you keep owning yourself with your horrible logic.

The bottom line is that she SURVIVED the crash because of the car she drove, and her REACTION TIME is the key factor in her 'not avoiding' the crash (if it was even possible, which you don't know) not the handling of the car... which is good anyway.

You can't show any kind of good reasoning that the same mom (and her 3 kids) would have had a better chance to avoid the collision in a freakin mustang... and those handle like crap anyways.

She survived the crash because of shear luck, or mabye she realized that it was hopeless to try to get out of the way because lumbering SUV's don't do that and she'd have a better chance in a head on. If she saw him from a quarter mile away, she still had more than 5 seconds to do something before impact, assuming this 165mph rate of closing. I'm still working on my math here...

I don't think the handling trade off is worth this- my understanding of the way the average SUV crashes

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: labgeek

Standard human reaction time used in court cases for accident reconstruction is 1.5 seconds. At 242 feet per second that's 363 feet of the gap that's closed. And that does not even bring into account physics for actually making the change to the movement of the vehicle... Thus, you in mustang = dead.

1.5 seconds is WAYYYY slow. You'd have to be 80 years old, on your phone, or half asleep to have reactions that slow.

Last time I almost hit something, it was at night and there was a deer that jumped out in front of me. A massive shot of adrenaline hits me instantly. If it took me 1.5 seconds to react, I would have plowed through the deer.

I went and did a little googling on it instead of trying to pull numbers out of my a$$. Note the words "used in court cases for accident reconstruction". I found several sites that said that 1.5 seconds was "common practice" since there are so manty variables involved.

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NFS4

DUDE, our family fuggin' owns a 2002 Highlander Limited V6. I've racked up over 15,000 miles in the damn thing. I know what it CAN and CAN NOT do. The vehicle has saved my ass on numerous occasions (Electronic brake distribution, stability control and traction control kicking in). The damn thing handles better than my '95 Camry LE and is faster and stops quicker..

Stopping distance for a 1995 Camry is 124 feet, and for a 2002 Highlander it's 131 feet. So the highlander does not stop quicker.

That's assuming a 95 Camry with brakes in original condition, highly unlikely after 10 years.

It has more to do with tires than brakes. No car has a problem locking up the wheels at 60 mph. Brakes easily overpower tires.

I have a 1992 Saturn SL2 with 219,000 miles, and if I hit the brakes hard enough the ABS kicks in. The amount of grip is limited by the tires' adhesion to the road. Throw sticky tires on and it will stop quicker. Throw crappy tires on and it will take longer to stop.

Is this even likely to be a situation you would stop in?
Seems like it would be a matter of swerving, not stopping.

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

Yea, you keep owning yourself with your horrible logic.

The bottom line is that she SURVIVED the crash because of the car she drove, and her REACTION TIME is the key factor in her 'not avoiding' the crash (if it was even possible, which you don't know) not the handling of the car... which is good anyway.

You can't show any kind of good reasoning that the same mom (and her 3 kids) would have had a better chance to avoid the collision in a freakin mustang... and those handle like crap anyways.

She survived the crash because of shear luck, or mabye she realized that it was hopeless to try to get out of the way because lumbering SUV's don't do that and she'd have a better chance in a head on. If she saw him from a quarter mile away, she still had more than 5 seconds to do something before impact, assuming this 165mph rate of closing. I'm still working on my math here...

I don't think the handling trade off is worth this- my understanding of the way the average SUV crashes

Did you personally witness the collision? Why are you making up all of this speculation sound like cold hard facts? You weren't there and you don't know what happened. Please stop posting. :roll:

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: HumblePie
I've driven a corolla for years now and I've avoided accidents where I know that most human beings would have been doomed to be hit just because I was watching the road, have good reaction times, and I know how to handle my car.

But then again, driving on a normal road does NOT require that kind of skills. A normal roadway or highway in America isn't a demolition derby. You can't blame the woman at all for not avoidning that accident. All you can do is that her lucky stars that she and her family came out of that situation relatively unscathed.

Could someone with a better car, or better set of motor skills, or better preperation and awareness come out of that situation without being hit at all? Maybe, and maybe not. I know I've turned onto a street where 2 people were racing in the WRONG DIRECTION going about 100+ each and I had a split second to react if even that much time. I managed to fish tail around fast enough from the corner and slip right in the middle of them and narrowly avoiding both cars. Even then, I consider what the hell I did one of the luckiest things I've ever done in my life because a fraction of a milimeter in either direction and I would have been toast. You can't expect that to happen nor is it something you can practically practice at to get the ability to do that almost all the time.

However, none of this should have happened at all if those two pricks hadn't been so freaking retarded.



SIDE NOTE Also acmec, Mustangs don't turn for crap. I'll take my RX8 for making hairpin turns over any mustang any day of the week.

fvcking QFT Couldn't have said it better myself. I agree with every part of your post except the "Mustangs don't turn for crap"

Mabye compared to the RX8 they don't, but I'd rather have a mustang than any FWD car or any SUV for turning any day of the week. I've heard amazing things about the RX8 from friends who have recently driven them and I'm sure it would manhandle any mustang in the corners, any day of the week, gg.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: labgeek

I went and did a little googling on it instead of trying to pull numbers out of my a$$. Note the words "used in court cases for accident reconstruction". I found several sites that said that 1.5 seconds was "common practice" since there are so manty variables involved.

Yeah, there are too many variables involved, since you don't know if the person was even looking in that direction or not. The time that I got hit hard, I didn't even see the guy since I was hit from behind at a stoplight. I'd imagine if someone is losing control in front of you, you'd see them for quite a distance away. But if someone is about to broadside you, you wouldn't see them until they're pretty close.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Is this even likely to be a situation you would stop in?
Seems like it would be a matter of swerving, not stopping.

I was just addressing his point about stopping distance, but yes, you'd be swerving in this instance and not trying to stop.

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

Yea, you keep owning yourself with your horrible logic.

The bottom line is that she SURVIVED the crash because of the car she drove, and her REACTION TIME is the key factor in her 'not avoiding' the crash (if it was even possible, which you don't know) not the handling of the car... which is good anyway.

You can't show any kind of good reasoning that the same mom (and her 3 kids) would have had a better chance to avoid the collision in a freakin mustang... and those handle like crap anyways.

She survived the crash because of shear luck, or mabye she realized that it was hopeless to try to get out of the way because lumbering SUV's don't do that and she'd have a better chance in a head on. If she saw him from a quarter mile away, she still had more than 5 seconds to do something before impact, assuming this 165mph rate of closing. I'm still working on my math here...

I don't think the handling trade off is worth this- my understanding of the way the average SUV crashes

"They had gone out shopping and were just two blocks from their home when Feria raced across a grass median near Beach 78th St. and barreled into them, police said."
If you look at a picture of the road (or if you are familiar) you'll see a tiny grass median..
It says he lost control of his car and slammed into hers.
Don't you think it's FAR MORE LIKELY that the guy lost control of his car within a distance from her to where neither person could do anything to avoid the collision?
Or do you think he crossed over a mile down the road, and just kept going somehow while still not having control?

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: acemcmac
So far, I've managed to get half a dozen lifers to personally insult me while nobody wants to admit that they agree with that, while this was unfortunate, "mabye if her maneuverability wasn't limmited by her SUV, she could have avoided this."

That's because making such an admission would be tantamount to one making an admission that he is a complete and total idiot.

Yea, you keep owning yourself with your horrible logic.

The bottom line is that she SURVIVED the crash because of the car she drove, and her REACTION TIME is the key factor in her 'not avoiding' the crash (if it was even possible, which you don't know) not the handling of the car... which is good anyway.

You can't show any kind of good reasoning that the same mom (and her 3 kids) would have had a better chance to avoid the collision in a freakin mustang... and those handle like crap anyways.

She survived the crash because of shear luck, or mabye she realized that it was hopeless to try to get out of the way because lumbering SUV's don't do that and she'd have a better chance in a head on. If she saw him from a quarter mile away, she still had more than 5 seconds to do something before impact, assuming this 165mph rate of closing. I'm still working on my math here...

I don't think the handling trade off is worth this- my understanding of the way the average SUV crashes

"They had gone out shopping and were just two blocks from their home when Feria raced across a grass median near Beach 78th St. and barreled into them, police said."
If you look at a picture of the road (or if you are familiar) you'll see a tiny grass median..
It says he lost control of his car and slammed into hers.
Don't you think it's FAR MORE LIKELY that the guy lost control of his car within a distance from her to where neither person could do anything to avoid the collision?
Or do you think he crossed over a mile down the road, and just kept going somehow while still not having control?

you can go pretty far in a car sideways

seriously though... did you find another article? the police blotting sites for queens came up blank... I havent seen this picture yet