Nissan GTR vs Tree

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Nissan GTR vs Tree

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

4591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2570

Trusted

#1453653 19-Dec-2015 20:08

Talkiet:
muppet: I also have speculations about this:

a) The car was using jet fuel (Which CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS)
b) A bee got stuck in the brake caliper causing it to lock
c) It hadn't had an oil change since 1974
d) The road was on an incline due to a pebble
c) I also own a car
i) The driver was as bad at bullet points as I am
f) he/she had recently eaten a large sausage causing their reaction time to slow and
k) all of the above

I think that explains it clearly.

I fixed your point A. You left a bit off (I added in bold)

Cheers - N

stop visiting the weird parts of the internet.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1453677 19-Dec-2015 22:17

I think we should analyse this the way that the "Traffic Investigations" programs do on TV:

* Driver
* Car
* Environment

We'll mention things which could remotely possibly be relevant, then use an expert to cleverly exclude them, thus creating tension. Then we'll make a bald assumption and state that as the proven cause of the accident, with some finger-waving and patronising commentary to tell the audience that they ought to be more careful. Repeat each piece of information, especially simulated re-enactments of the accident, at least three times.

Alternatively, we should analyse this the way that the "Traffic Investigations" programs do on TV:

* Driver
* Car
* Environment

We'll mention things which could remotely possibly be relevant, then use an expert to cleverly exclude them. Then we'll make a bald assumption and state that as the proven cause of the accident, with some finger-waving and patronising commentary to tell the audience that they ought to be more careful. Repeat each piece of information with slight variations, especially simulated re-enactments of the accident, at least three times.

Or, more scientifcally, we could analyse this the way that the "Traffic Investigations" programs do on TV:

* Driver
* Car
* Environment

We'll mention things which could remotely possibly be relevant, then use an expert to cleverly exclude them. Then we'll make a bald assumption and state that as the proven cause of the accident, with some finger-waving and patronising commentary to tell the audience that they ought to be more careful. Repeat each piece of information, especially simulated re-enactments of the accident, at least three times for the dim-witted.

G4m3r

77 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#1453690 19-Dec-2015 22:23

If they are willing to break the law by speeding as much as they did why would they care about a power restriction on a licence?

There will always be people that ignore licence conditions so they can have a more powerful car even if its not a GTR.

Just like the current restriction on learners/restricted bike licences is ignored by a few, and these few are usually the most at risk.

Why not have a compulsory practical driving skills were people are taught to think about balance of the car etc as part of getting a licence.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#1453762 20-Dec-2015 08:52

xpd:
UHD: This has nothing to do with the car and everything to do with the driver. I can get an old Nissan Sunny up to 120/130 and wrap myself around a tree if I wanted to.

My thoughts exactly, I had a GT Legacy and was overtaken by a 1L Nissan March on the motorway.

Its the driver not the car, and a lot of people think because they're in a performance car, that they should be able to drive like a race car driver. I never drove like an idiot in my Legacy, it was my pride and joy, there was no way I was going to risk losing it, myself or someone else.

If I wanted to drive like a race car driver, I'd be sensible and head to Hampton Downs or Pukekohe, not the local back street..... (never got the chance to goto either tho :( )

JC once said, "its not speed that kills, its the sudden stop"

These guys almost learnt that......

Waste of a car.

Same argument used by NRA against restrictions on gun ownership, e.g., guns don't kill people, irresponsible gun owners do. There sure area lot of irresponsible gun owners out there.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1453783 20-Dec-2015 09:53

Fred99:
Dingbatt: I wonder if their families will try and sue Nissan like Paul Walker's family are with Porsche?

Maybe since there weren't any innocent third parties affected (apart from the tree) it can be chalked up to Darwinism in action.

I wonder if like Porsche, assorted data is retained in the ECU, which if able to be recovered might help the serious crash unit to prove beyond doubt what an idiot the driver was - when he's probably going to try and defend himself by saying that he lost control when he served to avoid a cat or whatever.

Being a late model GTR its Event Data Recorder and some of it's ECU's should have recorded enough detail to tell you what the driver had for breakfast.
Not as robust as an aircraft black box though, and, given they could access it, what would the Serious Crash Unit do with the data?

Can't see Nissan officially offering to help with this one.
Cops will have do the standard measurements, paint lines on the road, calculate the likely speed to prove the guys were morons.

As far as I can see Holden's the only manufacturer who specifically state (on their NZ website) they'll give EDR data to the police on request.

Probably 'cause back in 2010 a NZ court convicted a HSV Clubsport driver (who claimed to be driving at 50km/h) of dangerous driving causing injury after it's airbag deployment data showed he was driving at 150.

The data could only be used because the vehicle (being a GM product) was fitted with a US style Airbag Control Module activated EDR which could be sent to the US & read by a certified Crash Data Retrieval unit.

I'd be interested to know what the laws are regarding EDR data in NZ. The first few pages of the owner's manual in my daily driver (a US market Ford) are warnings about Event Data Recording & privacy.
Says the EDR data can be accessed (in the US) without the owner’s consent for safety research, vehicle servicing, and by court order, and that it's EDR will not record “under normal driving conditions” but only “if a non-trivial crash situation occurs” What that actually means is an airbag deployment will make the data un-erasable, a near deployment (sudden change in speed, eg braking, side G's) will hold it for 250 ignition cycles.

A page or two on there's another warning that “Powertrain Control Systems will store information about vehicle modifications which cannot be erased and will stay in the system’s memory even if the modification is removed” so obviously the EDR's not the only unit recording permanent data..

MadEngineer

4591 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2570

Trusted

#1453851 20-Dec-2015 12:07

frankv: I think we should analyse this the way that the "Traffic Investigations" programs do on TV:

you forgot the repeated info for those that have just joined after the ad-break *cough* to fill in the time slot *cough

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

hyperman

418 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 101

#1453932 20-Dec-2015 14:49

frankv: I think we should analyse this the way that the "Traffic Investigations" programs do on TV:

* Driver
* Car
* Environment

We'll mention things which could remotely possibly be relevant, then use an expert to cleverly exclude them, thus creating tension. Then we'll make a bald assumption and state that as the proven cause of the accident, with some finger-waving and patronising commentary to tell the audience that they ought to be more careful. Repeat each piece of information, especially simulated re-enactments of the accident, at least three times.

hmmm

* Driver ; inexperienced early 20y/o
* Car ; ridiculously overpowered for drivers experience level
* Environment ; Semi rural, long straight road with small hills.

conclusion ; a early 20y/o got into a overpowered car for his experience level took it out to a semi rural straight road; floored it to see how fast it could go;
lost traction/steering (possibility airborne) over the crest of the hill and slammed into a tree....
and he and his passenger were taken approx 10km to Waikato hospital
sums it up nicely I think....

The views expressed by me are not necessarily those of my employer

Coil

6614 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2153
Inactive user

#1453946 20-Dec-2015 15:20

Fred99:
TimA:
mudguard:
TimA:
My little audi S4. 10K of car, 340HP/600NM and would walk any jap import. I got some seriously fast quarter miles and top speeds on Hampton for the money.
I paid $1700 a year for insurance.

What sort of times? Think Puke is a better bet for a top speed crack!

Best ever was a 12.8 trapped at 180ish

I have had it in a straight line up to 270. Ran out of space.

You're claiming that your heavily modified audi "would walk any jap import".
Unmodified (except disable the speed limiter) R35 GTRs are two seconds faster than that 1/4 mile, and are available as jap imports.
Completely different performance class - and price of course.

Road top speed was 270.
I'm not talking about a r35. We all know that's faster so I didn't mention that execution.. Imports like evolutions and skylines etc...
180 trap was kph.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#1453947 20-Dec-2015 15:20

hyperman:
frankv: I think we should analyse this the way that the "Traffic Investigations" programs do on TV:

* Driver
* Car
* Environment

We'll mention things which could remotely possibly be relevant, then use an expert to cleverly exclude them, thus creating tension. Then we'll make a bald assumption and state that as the proven cause of the accident, with some finger-waving and patronising commentary to tell the audience that they ought to be more careful. Repeat each piece of information, especially simulated re-enactments of the accident, at least three times.

hmmm

* Driver ; inexperienced early 20y/o
* Car ; ridiculously overpowered for drivers experience level
* Environment ; Semi rural, long straight road with small hills.

conclusion ; a early 20y/o got into a overpowered car for his experience level took it out to a semi rural straight road; floored it to see how fast it could go;
lost traction/steering (possibility airborne) over the crest of the hill and slammed into a tree....
and he and his passenger were taken approx 10km to Waikato hospital
sums it up nicely I think....

Cite your sources. Maybe you are correct, but I think you are making some assumptions.

Driver: Age reports have varied from early 20's to early 40's, depending on who you think was driving or believe. Are you aware that there are some phenomenally experienced under 20 year old drivers out there? Some F1 drivers are under 20 years old and have won feeder series.

Car: You don't know the drivers experience level so you can't make this claim.

Environment: This one you can almost judge from the photos and video, but unless you've driven that exact bit of road, again, you're making stuff up.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

hyperman

418 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 101

#1453955 20-Dec-2015 15:48

Talkiet:
hyperman:
frankv: I think we should analyse this the way that the "Traffic Investigations" programs do on TV:

* Driver
* Car
* Environment

We'll mention things which could remotely possibly be relevant, then use an expert to cleverly exclude them, thus creating tension. Then we'll make a bald assumption and state that as the proven cause of the accident, with some finger-waving and patronising commentary to tell the audience that they ought to be more careful. Repeat each piece of information, especially simulated re-enactments of the accident, at least three times.

hmmm

* Driver ; inexperienced early 20y/o
* Car ; ridiculously overpowered for drivers experience level
* Environment ; Semi rural, long straight road with small hills.

conclusion ; a early 20y/o got into a overpowered car for his experience level took it out to a semi rural straight road; floored it to see how fast it could go;
lost traction/steering (possibility airborne) over the crest of the hill and slammed into a tree....
and he and his passenger were taken approx 10km to Waikato hospital
sums it up nicely I think....

Cite your sources. Maybe you are correct, but I think you are making some assumptions.

Driver: Age reports have varied from early 20's to early 40's, depending on who you think was driving or believe. Are you aware that there are some phenomenally experienced under 20 year old drivers out there? Some F1 drivers are under 20 years old and have won feeder series.

Car: You don't know the drivers experience level so you can't make this claim.

Environment: This one you can almost judge from the photos and video, but unless you've driven that exact bit of road, again, you're making stuff up.

Cheers - N

yes there are a few assumptions there but to be honest a experienced driver wouldn't be doing that sort of speed on that road knowing that some of the rises are quite sharp and you could easily get airborne
and yes I have driven the road I live not far from it .....

The views expressed by me are not necessarily those of my employer

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453977 20-Dec-2015 17:33

anyone knows if we can see the eventual conclusions of the SCU (serious crash unit) investigation?

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1454021 20-Dec-2015 20:42

trig42: Yes I have heard people say that Compulsory Insurance would drive premiums upward.
Does anyone know why?

Captive market.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1454083 20-Dec-2015 22:37

joker97: anyone knows if we can see the eventual conclusions of the SCU (serious crash unit) investigation?

Sounds like those two guys might make it - described as "critical" but they'll probably survive. With the rate of death by car recently, this story will probably just drift off the radar and be forgotten by all including the SCU who will have more important things to do - investigating accidents where people actually have died, usually as the result of someone doing something dumb in a mundane car.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1454850 21-Dec-2015 22:45

lxsw20:
shk292: Compulsory insurance would have the same effect.

My cousin pays £600pa for insurance on a 1L 2012 Ford Fiesta in the UK. I do not like the idea of compulsory insurance.

Why not? 600 quid is cheap - and why should someone else pick up the cost of uninsured drivers wrecking their property when said uninsured driver turns out to be a bogan on minimum wage or benefits without two brass farthings to his name?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1454852 21-Dec-2015 22:50

Inphinity:
shk292: Compulsory insurance would have the same effect; cars of this type are impossible/unaffordable to insure unless you are very experienced and have a very clean insurance record

It would also prevent ownership of cheap, old, unsafe high performance cars by young, inexperienced drivers

NZ seems to be one of the few civilised countries without compulsory insurance but seems blind to the obvious solution

I don't see how anyone could afford a GTR (cheapest I've seen here yet is still around $70k) and not afford insurance. It also doesn't fall in to any of the categories you've given - cheap, old, unsafe.

While I agree with ideas about limiting performance / power / something for inexperienced drivers, it doesn't change the fact that a crash at 130kph is a crash at 130kph, regardless of how powerful the car is or isn't.

Of course some people will get, and be able to afford, insurance.

However, if a young driver (under 25) were to ring up a UK insurer (and NZ insurers would rapidly become very similar in this respect I am sure) and ask to insure such a car, you would probably hear the laughter down the phone from 20 miles away.

The insurer would refuse anything more than TPFT (if that) and that immediately makes driving the car illegal if there is no insurance and a massive risk to your pocket if you have only TPFT

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5