We are all going to DIE
Discussion
according to the Sunday Times InGear our cars are too powerfull and we are all going to die, what a load of bollox, mine only goes as fast as my right foot, 400 or 600 bhp , porsche are being sued for not training a driver who died in a Carrera GT , crazy what about all the 15 year old uninsured non maintained wrecks that crash every day ? doh!
it's only as fast as i want it to be.
it just won't go round cornerscummingsa said:
I guess thats what you get when you live in the good ol US of A. 'Oh I'm a complete numpty and cant drive so I'll get my family after my death to sue the car company'... Pathetic!!
Andy.
Andy.
Problem is if Porsche lose the case, the ramifications could be/will be far reaching.
Surely it's just common sense that driving fast = crashing fast = more chance of dying?
It's not as if a Carrera GT won't cruise along at 20mph, it's just that some people choose not too. The fact that it will do 200mph+ means that someone, somewhere, without the skill or experience to do it, will try to do it. And then the inevitable will happen.
It's not as if a Carrera GT won't cruise along at 20mph, it's just that some people choose not too. The fact that it will do 200mph+ means that someone, somewhere, without the skill or experience to do it, will try to do it. And then the inevitable will happen.
spice said:
according to the Sunday Times InGear our cars are too powerfull and we are all going to die, what a load of bollox, mine only goes as fast as my right foot, 400 or 600 bhp , porsche are being sued for not training a driver who died in a Carrera GT , crazy what about all the 15 year old uninsured non maintained wrecks that crash every day ? doh!
America.
In America a woman successfuly sued the manufacturers of her mobile house/truck thing the Americans love so much.
It crashed, but it wasnt her fault - she just put the cruise control on and went into the back of the van and made a cup of coffee...
In court she argued that the manual for the vehicle didnt say that she couldnt do this, and there for won the case (?)!
Everyone takes their risks and puts that with their intelligence. That is what our brains are for and why the theory of natural selection applies as much today as it ever has!
RobPhoboS said:
Have you got a link to the said article ?
For some reason I enjoy reading articles that make me really angry.
For some reason I enjoy reading articles that make me really angry.
Here you go
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
Edited by 555jwr on Monday 12th February 13:53
555jwr said:
RobPhoboS said:
Have you got a link to the said article ?
For some reason I enjoy reading articles that make me really angry.
For some reason I enjoy reading articles that make me really angry.
Here you go
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
article said:
This time McClellan is arguing there is a design defect with the Carrera GT that makes it “tail happy”, and that the car is too difficult for the average driver to handle at high speeds without instruction — claims that Porsche vigorously denies.
No shit.
I consider myself above-average for the UK (based on observed evidence) and I wouldn't want to push a Carrera GT anywhere NEAR it's limits.
It's simple common sense - if you want to own such a car, make sure you're capable of handling it.
You wouldn't let (e.g.) a 23y.o. pilot with a PPL, instrument rating and 800hrs on single- and twin-pistons loose on a 747 or a Eurofighter, so why do people think that a supercar is going to be just like their old Golf or Civic?!?
In that regard I CAN agree with the plaintiff. BUT...there is a simple rule which (slightly twisted) applies here - caveat emptor!!! You buy a gun and then shoot yourself because you don't know what you're doing, it's your fault!!!
The point is though is that Porsche are being sued for releasing a high powered car with a design defect? What defect exactly are we talking about here?
http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/arch
edited:
"THE CLAIMS
The lawsuit asserts a number of claims against several defendants. The more significant are:
• Keaton Estate - Failure to inform Rudl that he had been having handling problems with the Porsche, and that he had a recent incident where he lost control of the car.
• Racetrack owners and operators - Maintaining an unsafe racetrack as a result of inadequate maintenance, signage, and safety controls, and not moving back the concrete barriers after creating the children's play area.
• Ferrari Owners Club and the flagman - Negligently operating the track day by sending the Ferrari onto the track at the wrong time, violating their own rules by allowing passengers in the cars, failing to disclose Keaton's dangerous driving propensities, and allowing the track day to occur without moving the concrete barriers back to where they belonged.
• Ferrari driver - Not paying attention to the flagman, entering the track improperly, driving too slowly, and moving directly into the path of the Porsche.
• Porsche - Product liability for selling an unsafe car. This falls into three levels of defect.
1. There was some mechanical problem with this particular car that made it handle badly.
2. There are design defects with the Carrera GT that make it a poor-handling car, mainly tail-happy.
3. Third: The Carrera GT is too difficult a car to handle at high speeds for the average driver without instruction.
"mainly tail happy" - no shit sherlock! It is a mid-engined supercar with over 600bhp, didn't the driver know this?
It seems the cause of the accident was the F driver pulling on-track when unsafe to do so.
http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/arch
edited:
"THE CLAIMS
The lawsuit asserts a number of claims against several defendants. The more significant are:
• Keaton Estate - Failure to inform Rudl that he had been having handling problems with the Porsche, and that he had a recent incident where he lost control of the car.
• Racetrack owners and operators - Maintaining an unsafe racetrack as a result of inadequate maintenance, signage, and safety controls, and not moving back the concrete barriers after creating the children's play area.
• Ferrari Owners Club and the flagman - Negligently operating the track day by sending the Ferrari onto the track at the wrong time, violating their own rules by allowing passengers in the cars, failing to disclose Keaton's dangerous driving propensities, and allowing the track day to occur without moving the concrete barriers back to where they belonged.
• Ferrari driver - Not paying attention to the flagman, entering the track improperly, driving too slowly, and moving directly into the path of the Porsche.
• Porsche - Product liability for selling an unsafe car. This falls into three levels of defect.
1. There was some mechanical problem with this particular car that made it handle badly.
2. There are design defects with the Carrera GT that make it a poor-handling car, mainly tail-happy.
3. Third: The Carrera GT is too difficult a car to handle at high speeds for the average driver without instruction.
Edited by anniesdad on Monday 12th February 14:22
"mainly tail happy" - no shit sherlock! It is a mid-engined supercar with over 600bhp, didn't the driver know this?
It seems the cause of the accident was the F driver pulling on-track when unsafe to do so.
Edited by anniesdad on Monday 12th February 14:25
havoc said:
I consider myself above-average for the UK (based on observed evidence) and I wouldn't want to push a Carrera GT anywhere NEAR it's limits.
Do you know the events that the case relates to?
Now forgive me if I get any of this wrong but iirc
The CGT was being driven down a high speed straight on a racetrack. In the same position I would certainly be pushing the car to the limit.
A Ferrari 360 was then accidentally waved onto the track, the CGT tried to avoid it and went into a concrete barrier (which shouldn't have been there, it hadn't been moved following an earlier event)
If I took my car to a racetrack and died, I sure wouldn't expect anyone to be able to sue the manufacturer - unless the it was the cars fault
This unfortunate event was just a really bad luck accident - they happen and at 200mph people die
Also iirc there is another twist to the story - it's not the family of the passenger that is suing Porsche/the racetrack/the Ferrari driver and the family of the CGT driver - it's the passengers Life Insurance company which is trying to avoid a massive payout
sorry was typing this when the previous post went up
Edited by traxx on Monday 12th February 14:36
How can an insurance company sue somebody for "possible" losses. Surely they would be required to payout and then sue? They're simply trying to say "hey, it's not our problem, it's Porsches so take your claim directly to them!" If so I find that disgusting!
If they (the insurers) had a case that is....
If they (the insurers) had a case that is....
traxx said:
Do you know the events that the case relates to?
Not at the time I posted.
That said, think most of it still applies - I personally wouldn't push a CGT near it's limit on-track, and doubly-so not if I thought there was a handling issue - I'd take it to the dealer.
Agree with most of the rest of your post - it strikes me as a 'sequence of unfortunate events' tragic accident. Blame could be partly laid at all number of doors, as they've tried to do (covering all the bases?).
But it's all a bit pathetic and typically American. The primary cause, without knowing more about any potential defect with the specific car, HAS to be the 360 driver pulling onto circuit slowly. But cause doesn't necessarily = blame.
dj kam said:
RobPhoboS said:
Seriously, these people are complete morons.
Completely agree, sure this echoed by lots of people after seeing the Top Gear Episode on Sunday.
If you ask me there are at least 2 distinct Americas.
There is the stereotypical 'redneck' township, located either in the deep south or the agricultural centreland.
And then there is the modern, cosmopolitan coastal cities, where you find the people who AREN'T married to a close relative, DO travel abroad, and CAN complete a coherent sentence.
(if you wanted to go beyond that you could...but then again the UK can be subdivided, although not as obviously by geography)
The uber-legislative "sue everyone, let God sort 'em out" types ironically seem to live in both US environments, and I guess are a product of opportunity (much like the rise of the benefit classes in the UK - they've spotted an opportunity to make money without working).
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff