Toyota Highlander passengers survive 100 mph street racing accident

[amcdonald]

This whole ridiculous conversation is MOOT, because we don't have a freakin video of the accident, so we don't know the details.

The only thing we can ascertain from this thread is that acmeacaacme is, and I quote, "A tool."

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: amcdonald
This whole ridiculous conversation is MOOT, because we don't have a freakin video of the accident, so we don't know the details.

The only thing we can ascertain from this thread is that acmeacaacme is, and I quote, "A tool."

go you :roll:

 

[vi edit]

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

Oh yes, because posting a pic of a COMPLETELY different vehicle built on a COMPLETELY different type of frame is and excellent comparison for this topic.

A Highlander is built off the camry platform. It's car based that is engineered from the ground up for safety and crash protection.

A Durango is truck based body on frame that is built for hauling and towing, with safety a far second.

You are out of straws. Please stop grasping for them.

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

Originally posted by: amcdonald
This whole ridiculous conversation is MOOT, because we don't have a freakin video of the accident, so we don't know the details.

The only thing we can ascertain from this thread is that acmeacaacme is, and I quote, "A tool."

go you :roll:

Ok, explain to me how you shouldn't come off as a jackass.
This is what happened.
-Someone posts thread about woman and her freakin family surviving what should have been a fatal car crash.
-You post that it's her fault for not avoiding the accident, because she doesn't drive a mustang (or similarly impractical sporty car).
-Everyone gangs up on you.
-You brag about how well you can drive and continue to blame the accident on the SUV, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA HOW THE WRECK HAPPENED.

Does that sound right?

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: acemcmac

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.

A mustang "usually" handles better then most SUVs, but then again, it also depends on other conditions. I used to own a '96 mustang GT 5.0 liter. I drive my friends '03 mach 1 every so often too. Get a little bit of a slick roadway and your back end is going to fly out like an SOB in a 'stang. Most stangs don't have limited slip deferintials, stability and traction control, and other nifty new gadgets now found on a few SUVs. Those little devices make small SUVs handle as well or better in many situations then cars wtihout them.

Then again, I've taken hairpin turns in my corolla with the crappiest suspension and tires that would frighten to death most people. Why? because I figured out exactly how to brake/drift my '97 corolla. Just take it in a field or an empty parking lot and learned the vehicle. The funny thing is, I STILL think my '97 corolla handled 100x better then my '96 stang and all conditions. That's just my perceptions but there are still things I can do today (I still own all 3 cars) in that corolla that I can't do in the stang without losin control in a field or parking lot. My new RX8 blows them out of the water in terms of handling though.

 

[CVSiN]

he was drag racing big woop..
this has been going on since the dawn of time and the invention of the wheel..

hell I know even my dad was guilty of street drags in the 60s
I'sure alot of y'alls dads that were into cars prolly did this as well..

sure it breaks laws.. and can be dangerous..
but it doesnt make them an asshat.
accidents happen oh well.

 

[gabemcg]

Bookmarked, I'm going to show this to customers who are interested in buying a Highlander... score!

 

[Optimus]

acemcmac:

No flames here, but I will try to explain a few issues:

1) Not everyone has great reflexes - its an inborn thing. The fact that her SUV was hit dead center head on means she did not have time to react at all. No matter what she was driving, she physically as a human being did not have time to react. Therefore she WAS better off in a stronger vehicle for the impact.

2) 100mph is insanely fast to react to. As an ice hockey goaltender who has played at some high levels, I can assure you that an object coming at you at 90mph from about 50 ft is too fast to even see, let alone physically react to. She likely had more than 50 feet to see this idiot, but still not enough time to physically react.

3) If the SUV were the problem, then she would have been hit front quarter panel or rolled the SUV - that would be evidence that the SUV failed to keep up with her input reactions of steering and braking. The descriptions of the accident indicate the collision was completely head on, meaning the SUV had not been steered in either direction.

Logically this means that the bottleneck in the accident was NOT the SUV. She would have been hit dead on by ANY vehicle.

4) I have taken professional riding courses specializing in collision avoidance on my motorcycle. There is almost nothing as maneuveralbe on the road as a good motorcycle, PLUS it has only about 1/5 the front impact area of a car or SUV. From my experience, there is a VERY significant chance that a skilled motorcyclist would not be able to avoid a collision on a regular street of a car coming at you the wrong way at a combined speed of 150mph+. That is, quite simply, the proverbial deadly accident.

5) This is the important point: By blaming her choice in vehicle, you are placing blame upon a clearly innocent victim in a situation where blame clearly lies 100% with the street racers. Combined with some unverifiable and arrogant boasting of your own driving abilities AND the fact that you own and admitedly agressivly drive the same vehicle as caused the news story accident, these are the reasons you are getting flamed in this thread. Most people cannot stand seeing victims blamed in an accident such as this, where the other parties were so clearly at fault.

The fact that you feel SUV's are poorly designed vehicles is a valid opinion. The fact that you believe a more skilled driver in a better maneuvering vehicle would have stood more of a chance than this lady did in her SUV is a somewhat valid opinon, even if logically the 'better chance' is very small.

Your leap from the 2 above opinions to the conclusion that the SUV lady is somehow to blame for the accident, is not logically sound and it pushes people's buttons.

 

[Optimus]

sure it breaks laws.. and can be dangerous..
but it doesnt make them an asshat.
accidents happen oh well.

Your above statement is only valid if it is about drag/street racing in a deserted area, such as the racing that goes on at night in industrial areas, etc.

The guys in the article were drag/street racing on residential, occupied streets. The problem there is that they are not only risking thier own lives, but the lives of innocent people who do NOT chose to be involved.

That is a very basic violation of the other people's rights. It is completely unfair and dangerous. I do not want to have anyone like that racing as these 2 did when I am driving to work or driving my family around town.

Thier fun does not give them any right to endanger other people's lives. For doing so, they are complete and total asshats and anyone who does the same is too.

 

[mercanucaribe]

acemcmac, why didn't the Mustang going 100mph dodge the Highlander?

 

[NFS4]

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.

We're talking about a '95 Camry LE (front discs, rear drums with ABS) with 168,000 miles on it, with original rotors (turned twice) on tires that are due for changing vs a 2002 Highlander Limited (4 wheel discs with ABS and EBD) with only 24,000 miles on the ODO.

 

[acemcmac]

Optimus:

I think my only mistake was being a poster who has previously admitted to being an agressive mustang driver. My original "blaming" of her was more trolling than anything else. If I wanted to be taken seriosuly with my opinion that you summed up with,

The fact that you believe a more skilled driver in a better maneuvering vehicle would have stood more of a chance than this lady did in her SUV is a somewhat valid opinon, even if logically the 'better chance' is very small. "

I should have been more straightforward to start. Thank you for your considerate post. Parts of your 5th point had not occured to me, and at no point did I mean to come across as arrogant with regards to my own driving abilities. I constantly push my cars to the limit so that I can better understand how to best react in emergency situations without having to hesitate over the nature of how the car will respond to my input. I don't think I'm the world's best driver by a long shot, but I'm very passionate about self-improvement.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
acemcmac, why didn't the Mustang going 100mph dodge the Highlander?

lol, beacuse I got the idea he was already driving on the wrong side of the road... the force was not strong in that one :laugh:

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
acemcmac, why didn't the Mustang going 100mph dodge the Highlander?

Because Mustang owners suck at driving?

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
acemcmac, why didn't the Mustang going 100mph dodge the Highlander?

Because Mustang owners suck at driving?

oh, stfu. We've already estabished that the racers were complete idiots for racing in an area where they were in danger to other cars. What do you expect?

 

[eLiu]

wow that is one LUCKY family...(well not lucky for being hit, but really lucky for surviving)

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Optimus


4) I have taken professional riding courses specializing in collision avoidance on my motorcycle. There is almost nothing as maneuveralbe on the road as a good motorcycle, PLUS it has only about 1/5 the front impact area of a car or SUV. From my experience, there is a VERY significant chance that a skilled motorcyclist would not be able to avoid a collision on a regular street of a car coming at you the wrong way at a combined speed of 150mph+. That is, quite simply, the proverbial deadly accident.

Motorcycles are a bit different than cars. While motorcycles are maneuverable when you are anticipating the maneuver, you cannot make quick reactions on a motorcycle like you can in a car. On a motorcycle, you need to anticipate the turn and lean your body for balance.

You can't just abruptly turn the handlebars and expect the bike to steer, you'd fall off. You need to lean in advance. In a car you can just turn the wheel quickly without needing to balance.

Originally posted by: Optimus

1) Not everyone has great reflexes - its an inborn thing. The fact that her SUV was hit dead center head on means she did not have time to react at all. No matter what she was driving, she physically as a human being did not have time to react. Therefore she WAS better off in a stronger vehicle for the impact.

The possibility also exists that she was talking to her friends in the car and wasn't even paying attention. She could have had time to react, had she been paying attention, we just don't know if she was or not.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

if you've driven it, I'll take your word for it and recind my judgment... but from my experience, I wouldn't even condsider a rav4 to be safe enough in the "accident avoidability" department... I have a really really hard time imagining that beast doing a high speed salom without flipping...

I FSCKING OWN ONE

Are you daft? The people in Highlander weren't doing 100. They were probably doing somwhere around 45-55 where a Highlander could easily make an emergency manuever without endangering themselves.

Plus the Highlanders have so many technical bells and whistles on them, they pretty much eliminate the potentional roll over. And even if they did roll over, rolling a vehicle is a hell of a lot better for you than taking it head on from a car coming at you at 100MPH.

The highlander is a much, much different vehicle than what you think it is. The only similarity it shares with a Suburban is shape.

QFT. I've driven it too...I was thoroughly surprised when it didn't drive like my friend's suburban. *Thoroughly* surprised. It certainly is a responsive car. Handled better than my gf's 1992 camry (which shouldn't be that surprising, lol)...that thing really has 'jello' suspsension.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: NFS4


We're talking about a '95 Camry LE (front discs, rear drums with ABS) with 168,000 miles on it, with original rotors (turned twice) on tires that are due for changing vs a 2002 Highlander Limited (4 wheel discs with ABS and EBD) with only 24,000 miles on the ODO.

The only pertinent bit of info there is about the tires. Drum brakes work, that won't affect anything, the rotors won't make a bit of difference, and the mileage won't matter.

As long as your brakes are able to grip hard enough to make the tires break loose, the braking system did all that it could. From that point on, it's all about the tires.

 

[mugs]

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...

Without seeing how it happened, you can't say if moving over a car width would have made a difference. It could have just resulted in him hitting the side of the SUV. That would potentially be much worse.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
I don't really think the other Mustang driver should be charged with murder. Definitely should go to jail for something though.

word
he didnt murder anyone the dead guy killed himself... wtf

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NFS4


We're talking about a '95 Camry LE (front discs, rear drums with ABS) with 168,000 miles on it, with original rotors (turned twice) on tires that are due for changing vs a 2002 Highlander Limited (4 wheel discs with ABS and EBD) with only 24,000 miles on the ODO.

The only pertinent bit of info there is about the tires. Drum brakes work, that won't affect anything, the rotors won't make a bit of difference, and the mileage won't matter.

As long as your brakes are able to grip hard enough to make the tires break loose, the braking system did all that it could. From that point on, it's all about the tires.

Uh no.

 

[HumblePie]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NFS4


We're talking about a '95 Camry LE (front discs, rear drums with ABS) with 168,000 miles on it, with original rotors (turned twice) on tires that are due for changing vs a 2002 Highlander Limited (4 wheel discs with ABS and EBD) with only 24,000 miles on the ODO.

The only pertinent bit of info there is about the tires. Drum brakes work, that won't affect anything, the rotors won't make a bit of difference, and the mileage won't matter.

As long as your brakes are able to grip hard enough to make the tires break loose, the braking system did all that it could. From that point on, it's all about the tires.

Tires, speed, mass, and the direct momentum of the vehicle in question. Those all effect NORMAL stopping distance. Abnormal would be less then ideal road conditions which would also affect stopping distance on any car. A car with less stopping distance then an SUV normally may be in the reverse order on a slick road if the car doesn't have ABS and the SUV does.

However, if the brakes work, ie can lock up the tires, then the age of the car, mileage, type of brakes, and brake components don't matter at all. A SUV that weighs more then a car and going at the same speed as a car will have a greater stoppoing distance on normal roadways. Now, comparing a 3 ton studebaker to a 1 ton SUV will make a SUV have a shorter braking distance at least

 

[vi edit]

So all things being equal, if I take the same disk brake/rotor/pad combination found in a Porche GT2 and put them in a Camry, it will have the same stopping distance of an identical Camry with the stock drum/disk brake combo?

Assuming identical tires?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: labgeek


Uh no.

Uh (mouthbreather), yes.

Do you wish to challenge me in a discussion about cars? If you're stupid enough to say something like that, then speak up. I'll shoot you down with ease.